Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that The International Organisation (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2)
BILL

CHERTSEY URBAN COUNCIL BILL

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL

RUGBY CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BILL [Lords]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GRAYSON ROLLO AND CLOVER DOCKS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill according read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That in the case of the Walthamstow Corporation Bill [Lords] Standing Orders 179 (Printing of Bill as amended in Committee), 180 (Deposit of copies of Bill at public Departments, etc., before consideration) and 201 (Notice of consideration of Bill) be suspended and that the Bill be now considered, provided that amended copies have been previously deposited.
I am moving this and the following Motion to give the promoters of the Bill, the Committee stage of which was concluded last week, the opportunity of obtaining the Royal Assent before the summer Adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly considered.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

National Assistance Board, Scotland (Economies)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what economies are being made in the functioning of the National Assistance Board in so far as Scotland is concerned.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Board informs me that it is reviewing its staffing needs in Scotland, as in England and Wales, with a view to some administrative economy, which it assures me will not affect Assistance policy and its application to grants of allowances. Small savings will also be effected by closing some little-used reception centres for casuals.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that the economies which could be obtained in this direction are in any event marginal? Would he agree that it is the very depth of meanness to look in this field for economies which the Government are seeking to make?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with the hon. Member that in this field the economies are necessarily small, but I would not say that it was either mean—to use the phrase used by the hon. Member—or inappropriate to look for administrative economies in any directions where they can be effected without alterations in policy.

Mr. Steele: Could we have an assurance from the Minister that when the economies are considered the Government will not propose to do the same here as in the matter of pensions, where, I understand, welfare officers are being dispensed with and the Government are asking the W.V.S. to do that work?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member will realise, that is a question quite different from the Question on the Order Paper. If he will put it down I will do my best to answer it, but I must not be taken as accepting what the hon. Member says.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that earnings have risen by 85 per cent. from October, 1946, to October, 1955; and by how much he estimates that pensions would have to rise above the present level to correspond with the earnings increase over the same period.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The percentage quoted by the hon. Member relates to men only, and is based on figures which include bonus and overtime payments. A corresponding rise in the pension rate
of 40s. would involve an increase of 8s.

Mr. McKay: I quite agree that the 85 per cent. is for men only, but I take it that a rise of 12s. 8d. would be needed to provide the same percentage of 85 to married pensioners. I think it is also true that all this time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. McKay: The point is, ought there not to be a relationship between pensions rise and a general rise of income within the nation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thought that that was the point the hon. Member was coming to. I would say with respect that there are many other matters besides the rise in male gross earnings, which is the figure with which the hon. Member is concerned. There are many other factors, such as the appropriate rate of contribution, which affect this question, and I do not think that the particular factor to which the hon. Member has referred necessarily has very much weight.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that salaries rose by 90 per cent. from 1946 to 1954 and increased by approximately 105 per cent. from 1946 to 1955; and how much less was the rise in the benefits paid to National Insurance married retired pensioners over the same periods.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures quoted by the hon. Member relate to total amounts paid in salaries, and so must exaggerate the percentage increase in salary rates. But the total amounts paid to National Insurance retirement pensioners rose proportionately more over the same periods, with the result that the last part of the hon. Member's Question does not arise.

Mr. McKay: Is it not true that when total salaries are rising from one year to another one gets no idea what the individual salaries are in value, and therefore the figures are useless for comparisons?

The expenditure of the National Insurance Fund on retirement pensions in the years stated, and its relationship to total personal income in the United Kingdom (separate figures are not available for Great Britain), were as follows:


—
1949–50
1950–51
1951–52
1952–53
1953–54
1954–55



£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000
£'000


Expenditure on retirement pensions (Great Britain)
248,944
248,638
275,200
315,512
334,083
348,112


Percentage of personal income (U.K.)
Per cent. 2·33
Per cent. 2·20
Per cent. 2·24
Per cent. 2·40
Per cent. 2·39
Per cent. 2·34

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures which the hon. Member put in his Question are the figures which I understand he is indicating are useless for this purpose, and with that I quite agree.

Captain Pilkington: Do not the figures show a substantial increase in the standard of living in recent years?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the amount paid to retired National Insurance pensioners for the years 1950 to 1955 separately; and what percentage of the national domestic income was the amount each year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McKay: Is it correct that the actual figure for 1950 was 2·08 and in 1955 it was 2·08 also, and that it has been going down for the last two or three years? Is it not true that the pensioners could be given about 10 per cent. extra and it would not change the ultimate percentage compared with the national income?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first two parts of the supplementary question is, "No sir." It may reassure the hon. Member if I tell him that when he sees the table published in HANSARD he will see that for 1954–55—the last figure for which he asked—both the percentage and the absolute amount are substantially above those of 1950–51.

Following is the Answer:

Motor Industry (Short-time Working)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the reason for the delay in payment of benefit for short-time working to employees in the motor industry and for dates between 9th and 30th March; and when this money will be paid.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is not aware of any delay in paying benefit due to motor car workers who claimed benefit during the period mentioned. Delayed claims for these days are, I understand, still coming in, and are being dealt with in the ordinary way.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that the men are to some extent under a misunderstanding? They understand that' benefit between these two dates is a disputed claim and that the National Insurance office is turning them down. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the contrary?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Question relates to payment of benefits for short-time worked by employees in the motor industry generally, that is, I understand, in respect of all firms in all towns. Certainly I could not answer "off the cuff" the wider question which the hon. Member has asked, but I think the confusion which has arisen in the district with which he is particularly concerned is that advance notice of claim was quite properly given by the union at an earlier stage but the actual claims by the men on which payment is made are in many cases only coming in since the Birmingham tribunal decision.

Disabled Ex-Service Men

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will reintroduce the pre-war facilities for a disabled ex-Service man to commute his pension for a lump sum.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have recently been carefully into this proposal, which has superficial attractions. Actual experience, however, clearly shows that the practice when operated before the war did not on balance work out to the advantage of war pensioners. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that I should follow the line taken by my predecessors

for the last sixteen years, and not re-introduce commutation.

Mr. Holt: If the practice does not work out to the benefit of those who wish to take advantage of the facilities, nevertheless if they still wish to take advantage of it why should they not be allowed to do so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that that state of affairs, in human terms, is not an uncommon one, but it does not relieve my Department of responsibility for their welfare.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rule to which he referred has not been an absolute rule? There has been to my certain knowledge at least one case—a very exceptional one—in which it was found better to allow commutation of the pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not got that case in mind but no doubt it was during the term of office of the right hon. Member. I think he will not quarrel with me that generally the principle since 1940 has been to refuse commutation, and although it is sometimes attractive to look at individual cases, I think the rule generally followed is sound.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Solar Power

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the prospect of obtaining power from the sun; what Government-sponsored experiments are taking place, either by his Department or by private concerns working in conjunction with his Department or the nationalised industries; and what preparations are being made for the manufacture of solar batteries and utilisation of chemical energy with the injection of hydrogen gas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. David Renton): There is little prospect of obtaining power from the sun on a useful scale in this country because there is not enough sunshine and Britain is far from the tropics. No Government sponsored experiments are taking place at present, although Government scientists keep in touch with work in other countries.
American scientists have recently discovered a means of using sunlight to


convert water into hydrogen and oxygen gases but the process is still in its infancy and its development presents many difficult problems.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that, while the politicians are laughing, the scientists are continuing their experiments for the obtaining of power from the sun?

Mr. Renton: Yes, but in this country even the scientists are handicapped by the fact that heat and light are not intense, and their staying power not very great.

Oil Consumption

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the expenditure falling upon the National Coal Board in consequence of the importation of coal, he will undertake to promote increased consumption of oil in industry.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The extra cost of supplying imported coal is reflected in coal prices. This, with other factors, has already resulted in a considerable expansion of oil consumption.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister realise that the loss on imported coal is causing some lack of inducement in the mining industry, and will he take steps to see whether this burden cannot be eased in the near future?

Mr. Jones: I should have thought that the loss on imported coal constitutes a most effective inducement to everyone in the coal mining industry to endeavour to improve output.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Hydro-Electric Power

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of hydro-electric power in Britain.

Mr. Renton: The chief scope for hydro-electric schemes is in Scotland, and they are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. So far as England and Wales are concerned, there are no proposals other than those in the North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Act, 1955. Hydroelectric power is at present supplying

energy equivalent to a little over 1 million tons of coal, and on present plans this will increase to close on 2 million tons by the early 1960s.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on the study that is being made on the prospects of harnessing the Severn estuary and river for hydro-electric power; and what similar prospects there are for other bays or rivers on the coast of Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

Mr. Renton: The results of recent research into the Severn Barrage project are discouraging, and as far as we know no other tidal inlet in the country offers any better prospects.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I make no reflection at all upon the present Ministers, but is not the Minister aware that this is considered to be a terrible indictment of the inaction of past Governments in this regard? Is he aware that my interest in this subject was stimulated by a very fine experience I had before the war, when I spent a day poring over drawings with Mr. Stubbs, a director of Fodens and adviser to Metropolitan-Vickers, and one of the finest authorities in the world, on hydro-electrification; and has not the time arrived for action in this matter?

Mr. Renton: I fully appreciate all that the hon. Gentleman says, but I would ask him to bear in mind that the physical difficulties of the Severn Barrage project are immense, owing to the tremendous amount of silting which takes place with each incoming tide.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is not the Minister aware that France is now to take action in respect of the use of the tides? After the reports which we have had from the world's greatest authorities, surely some action should be taken.

Mr. Renton: Yes, but France has managed to find two suitable sites, where silting does not present the same problem.

Herbert Committee (Recommendation)

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is yet in a position to make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the recommendations of the Herbert Committee.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: No, Sir.

Mr. Holt: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make such a statement? This Report was presented in January, and the following month he said that he was asking for comments from the industry on the recommendations of the Report.

Mr. Jones: I will certainly endeavour to make a statement as soon as I can.

Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ANTHONY GREENWOOD: To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power, why it was decided to build a nuclear power station at Bradwell, Essex, rather than at Holywell Point, which Central Electricity Authority witnesses at the public inquiry admitted to be a suitable site, and which is a site free from many of the objections that have been made to the Bradwell site.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Anthony Greenwood.

Mr. Snow: As my hon. Friend is not here, and notwithstanding your previous Rulings, Mr. Speaker, that Questions which are not asked are the responsibility of the Member who is absent, I wonder whether, in the case of Question No. 21, you could make an exception, in view of the scandalous conduct of the public inquiry in question?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is not here to ask his Question, I cannot help that.

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will review the programme of the Atomic Energy Authority with a view to accelerating the contribution that it can make to Britain's fuel requirements.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, following the publication of the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Authority, he will now state what revisions have been made in the plan of nuclear power announced in February, 1955.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: As I indicated in the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill, the nuclear power programme set out in the White Paper of

February, 1955, is a minimum programme, and I attach the highest importance to expanding and accelerating that programme as much as we practically can. I have no doubt that we shall be able to achieve more than was first thought possible, but exactly how much more cannot be determined until, as I informed the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 4th June, the plans for the first stations, which are due to be submitted this autumn, have been examined and the appropriate conclusions drawn.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the action of Egypt this week-end add point to the implications of my Question? Does the Minister not realise that there is a growing feeling that the atomic energy programme is moving along too slowly, and that even on the basis of present knowledge and of the present operations at Calder Hall, there is already a case for substantially speeding up what the Government propose to do?

Mr. Jones: I fully accept that there is a case for speeding up the nuclear power programme, but it is not true that the programme is in any way being held up. Clearly it is premature to do anything until the plans of the first stations have been received and the costs and designs fully examined.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not possible to authorise more than the three stations which are now projected, so that the preliminaries can be got out of the way before the designs are ready?

Mr. Jones: No. With all respect, I submit that that is an answer which I can properly give only when the designs have been examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Production

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the extra amount of coal that would be needed to abolish domestic fuel rationing.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Any estimate must, of course, be extremely speculative, but I do not think that it would be safe to take a lower figure than two million tons.

Concessionary Coal

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total annual tonnage of concessionary coal now being allowed in the coal industry; to what total number of people it is being allowed; and to what total annual tonnage those people would be entitled as ordinary members of the community.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: About 5 million tons, issued to some 630,000 employees of the Board and to certain pensioners, miners' widows, etc. If these people were ordinary members of the community, their total permitted quantity of house coal and boiler fuel would amount to nearly three million tons. In addition many of them would be entitled to the extra allowances available to ordinary members of the public for cooking and other special circumstances; they could also increase their indirect use of coal by greater consumption of electricity, coke and gas.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that among other concessions which are granted are luncheon vouchers to typists in the City of London, cheap cigarettes to tobacco workers, motors cars at reduced prices to motor car workers, country houses to directors of B.S.A., Daimlers and mink to Sir Bernard Docker, and is he aware that we are getting tired of this constant nagging from the benches opposite about miners' concessionary coal?

Mr. Bell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is not responsible for most of the articles mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but that I should be quite pleased to put down Questions about them to the appropriate Ministers?

Mr. T. Williams: Does not the Minister deprecate such Questions as this, knowing full well that they are calculated to frustrate the efforts of the National Coal Board in recruiting miners?

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to arrange that widows and other dependants of its employees receiving a concessionary coal allowance, resulting from the voluntary surrender of a part of their entitlement by the employees of a particular colliery or area, may, if they leave that district, continue to receive this

allowance from the nearest colliery, thus avoiding the heavy charges for transport that they will otherwise have to meet.

Mr. Renton: This is a matter for negotiation between the National Coal Board and the trade unions representing its employees, but I am sure that the Board and the unions will take note of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is much the same reply as that which I have received over the last four months from two successive Chairmen of the National Coal Board? Is he further aware that a lady who, when living at Bolsover, paid 4s. for the transport of a load of coal from the Bolsover colliery, is paying £2 6s. for a load from the same colliery now that she has moved to Nottingham? Is it really beyond the wit of the National Coal Board to make the necessary adjustments in the books of the colliery concerned so that this lady can have her coal from the nearest colliery? Further, is it not a waste of manpower that a lorry should have to go over 40 miles from Bolsover to Nottingham and back when the lady could have her coal from the colliery nearest to where she now lives, instead of from the original colliery?

Mr. Renton: As I have said, this is a matter for the Board and for the unions, and it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene. But I am sure that they will take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Domestic Allocation (Administrative Cost)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the current annual cost of coal rationing.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Approximately £1 million.

Mr. Bell: Would not my right hon. Friend take the action which the Answers to these three Questions really indicates to be desirable?

Mr. Jones: I would not admit that the Answers to these three Questions make it clearly desirable to abolish rationing at this stage. I agree that it must be an aim of the Government to abolish coal rationing as soon as they possibly can,


but I cannot admit that this moment is yet, and to do it at this juncture might entail the risk of heavy imports, the cost of which would be far greater than the cost of rationing.

Opencast Production

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated reserves of coal in the opencast project now being started near Kinglossie, Fife; and how soon coal will be produced.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The Westfield opencast site contains at least 20 million tons of coal, and production will start in 1958.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister, at this juncture, say whether this project will be an economic proposition? Further, can he give an assurance that, when the coal has been extracted, the Coal Board will not leave the site in the same disgusting condition as that in which it left one in nearly the same area?

Mr. Jones: Certainly it will be an economic proposition; otherwise it would not have been undertaken. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would say that certainly the land will be restored as completely as modern methods make possible.

Colonel Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say by how much food production will be reduced in this area by the bulldozing of crops at the present time?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir, but, ordinarily, the value of opencast coal to be extracted from a particular site is more than twenty times the value of the agricultural produce which that site would otherwise produce.

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now able to make a statement regarding improved terms of compensation payable to occupiers of land requisitioned for opencast mining operations.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: No, Sir. The Government's examination of this question is not yet completed, but it is my intention to make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Mr. Speir: Does the Minister realise that the victims of these opencast operations suffer very severe inconvenience and

financial loss, and, surely, should receive generous and prompt treatment?

Mr. Jones: It is my wish to improve the terms of compensation as soon as possible, and in due course I shall certainly make a statement.

Overcharging (Prosecutions)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many prosecutions last year were brought against coal merchants for describing coal as a superior grade to that actually received from the colliery, and for charging the price for a grade superior to that actually delivered.

Mr. Renton: In 1955 there were, in all, 165 prosecutions for overcharging of various kinds, including those mentioned by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the prosecutions were restricted to Bradford and Glasgow, where the weights and measures inspectors have power to check that the grade charged for is the grade delivered?

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. These prosecutions took place in different parts of the country, and were not confined to those two cities.

Mrs. Mann: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to try to get the Bradford and Glasgow system extended throughout Great Britain, as that system is greatly appreciated by housewives in those cities?

Mr. Renton: That is a matter for consideration, but I should tell the hon. Lady that the methods of detection are improving all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Requirements (Airways Corporations)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Supply what consultations take place between his Department and the British aircraft manufacturers with regard to the production of aircraft to meet the requirements of the airline corporations.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There is consultation between the Ministry of Supply and the manufacturers, ranging from informal technical


discussions to formal contractual negotiations, but it would not be practicable within the limits of a Parliamentary Answer to give details of all the consultations which take place.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that there is great uneasiness in the industry about the manner in which these consultations, take place? If these consultations took place, why is the Chairman of B.O.A.C. obliged to go to America to buy American jet airliners?

Mr. Maudling: On the general question of consultation, I was not aware of any such uneasiness. I think that the next Question on the Order Paper refers to the question of B.O.A.C.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Supply if he is satisfied that the British aircraft industry will be able to meet the present and future need of aircraft for the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: The position is as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 25th July, and it would be premature for me to make a statement.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that the British aircraft industry has failed to meet the present and future needs of B.O.A.C.? If the industry fails to manufacture airliners for the North Atlantic routes, this country will be involved in the expenditure of millions of pounds and dollars.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept that. The aircraft industry at the moment is exporting at an annual rate of more than £100 million, and we cannot expect to export aircraft at that rate and refuse as a matter of principle to import any aircraft at all.

Javelin Aircraft Crash

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what inquiry was held after the crash of the Javelin fighter aircraft in which Mr. P. Lawrence, the Gloster Aircraft Company's test pilot, was killed: what was the cause of that accident; and what criticisms had been made to him of the controls of that aircraft before the accident.

Mr. Maudling: The circumstances of the accident were fully investigated by an officer representing the Chief Inspector of Accidents. It was attributed to the aircraft encountering a condition known as the stabilised superstall. This condition had not previously been experienced. In earliest test reports some criticisms of the controls had been made and improvements were devised, but the reports did not suggest the possible occurrence of a superstalled condition and were not such as to indicate that the aircraft would be dangerous in the hands of an experienced test pilot.

Prototype Aircraft (Test Reports)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply if he is satisfied that all revelant reports made by aircraft company test pilots of prototype aircraft ordered by his Department are received and studied by his Department; and if, in view of public disquiet aroused by recent evidence on this point, he will cause an appropriate inquiry to be made.

Mr. Maudling: In Government contracts for prototype aircraft the aircraft companies have an obligation to provide the Department with copies of every test report, together with copies of any records obtained from recording instruments and reports of any preliminary tests. These are carefully scrutinised both at headquarters and at the experimental establishments. In view of this, I see no justification for holding a special inquiry.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the difficulties that have been experienced both with the Javelin aircraft and with other fighter machines, and in view of the quite definite allegations that are being made by Squadron-Leader Waterton, does not the Minister agree that he is being a little too complacent about this business? Ought he not to look into it more seriously?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it is for me to intervene in any discussions which may take place between Squadron-Leader Waterton and his previous employers. I have been concerned to give the House the facts in this matter, which seem to me not to warrant any special inquiry.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that in the case of the Javelin and the Hunter aircraft, machines were put into production when faults were still embodied in


their design? I refer, for example, to the dive brakes which had to be put in after a number of Hunter aircraft had actually been built. In those circumstances, when the test pilots have submitted reports, does the Minister think that there is a proper liaison between his Department and the aircraft companies concerned? Ought he not to be taking a much closer look into the reports which are made in the course of development?

Mr. Maudling: I have looked into this matter very carefully and I am satisfied that full reports are submitted at all times by the aircraft companies. In particular, it has always been the practice of the Gloster Company to give us full reports of what its test pilots have to say.

Government Vehicles (100-Octane Petrol)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he has taken to test the efficiency of the new 100-octane grades of petrol for use in Government vehicles.

Mr. Maudling: None, Sir. Government vehicles are not designed for this grade of fuel.

Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very considerable claims are made for these types of petrol, which may or may not be valid? In the public interest, will my right hon. Friend not use his resources to have this kind of test made and the results published, so that we may all know what is really happening?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that these fuels are expressly declared to be suitable for engines with high compression ratios, and those types of engines are not used in Government vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Slaughterhouses and Knackers' Yards

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what improvements have now been carried out in the 15 horse slaughterhouses and 45 knackers' yards which in the early part of the year, were found to be unsatisfactory under the slaughter Regulations; and how the figures stand today.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): Better arrangements have been made for feeding and watering horses, and in some cases there have been structural alterations. As a result, well over half these premises now comply with the Regulations. Four of the horse slaughterhouses and 15 of the knackers' yards have minor technical defects. In these and in the case of two others which officers of my Department consider more unsatisfactory, we are urging the local authorities to expedite action under their powers.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many horse slaughterhouses and knackers' yards it is still the practice to kill horses in the sight of carcases.

Mr. H. Nicholls: No incidents have been reported to my Department since the hon. Member asked a similar Question on 12th April.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that we have been asking Questions on this subject for about eighteen months, and still he tells us that the slaughterhouses and knackers' yards have not been cleared up, let alone at a satisfactory pace? If we put down some more Questions, will the hon. Gentleman be able to say that the matter will be cleared up by the autumn?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that his questioning has helped. We are trying to urge the local authorities who have failed in this matter to make use of their powers under the Regulations. The Answers which have already been given to the hon. Member show that we are getting local authorities to recognise the urgency of this matter, and that we are making progress. If the hon. Member knows of any specific cases, we will see that the attention of the local authority concerned is drawn to the matter.

Mr. Fell: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not very satisfactory to hear that only about half of the knackers' yards and slaughterhouses have come into compliance with the Regulations? My hon. Friend must be a bit tougher with them.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend did not quite follow the purport of the Question and Answer. It was half of a specific number in an Answer which has already been given to the hon. Member. Half has already been cleared up. Most of the others have now got only technical defects which are being looked at, and we are down to two cases which we are looking at rather more urgently.

Smallholdings

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase during the year 1956–57 the number of smallholdings provided under the smallholdings legislation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It would be inconsistent with the Government's general economic policy to encourage county councils to promote smallholding schemes involving heavy capital expenditure, and for the time being only schemes of special urgency are being approved.

Mr. Champion: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this appears to be a betrayal of Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and that his failure, or the failure of his Ministry, to transfer 650 acres at Yeldham from his possession to the Essex County Council for smallholding purposes definitely points to the fact that the Ministry is not doing enough in this connection?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir; I do not think it is in any way inconsistent with the spirit of the 1947 Act. With reference to the Essex proposal at Yeldham, the land concerned was not of very good quality, and the expenditure concerned was excessively high.

Mr. C. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is a great shortage of, and a great demand for, smallholdings? Is he aware that in my county, for example, every time the county council has a vacant smallholding there are never fewer than about 50 or 60 well qualified young couples begging for that smallholding, of whom only one can be satisfied? What does he propose to do?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. Of course, it is a fact that the vast majority of our farms

in this country are smallholdings, so that in fact hundreds of thousands of smallholdings already exist. But before turning existing large holdings into smallholdings, we must be satisfied that the nation's resources will be well used in that particular way. At the present time, it would be wrong to proceed in that direction.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of my hon. Friend's remarks about the need for some economy in capital expenditure, will he bear in mind that, certainly in the Fens, there is a greater demand for part-time holdings, which would require no such capital expenditure, than for full-time holdings, and that, if it were not for the policy initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, these part-time holdings would have been supplied in far greater numbers?

Mr. Nugent: The need for part-time holdings in the Fens is always kept well before us by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke.)

Safety, Health and Welfare (Inspectors)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to create an inspectorate to enforce the provisions of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend has invited, and has received, from within the Department, applications for the posts of one chief and two deputy chief inspectors under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, and it is hoped to fill those three posts very soon. Arrangements are being made to fill other posts, partly by recruitment and partly by training inspectors who are at present employed under the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act and the Agricultural Wages Act.

Mr. Willey: Whilst congratulating the Minister on his early start, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to assure the House that this establishment will not suffer under any guise of economy? Secondly, can he tell the House whether the establishment will contain people suitably qualified in chemistry, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.?

Mr. Nugent: This establishment certainly will not be curtailed in any way in the interests of special economy, only just reasonable economy. We are proceeding forthwith to what we think is a sound administration, and we think that the inspectors will be suitably trained to cover the range of work which they have to undertake.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that "reasonable economy" does not ring very well?

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what qualifications will be required for the appointment of chief inspector and inspectors responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act.

Mr. Nugent: The chief inspector must be technically qualified and experienced in agricultural engineering. He and the other inspectors should be good all-round men, with a wide knowledge of agricultural operations and risks.

Mr. Willey: Whilst appreciating the need for an all-rounder, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates also the need to get someone suitably qualified, and that a person holding this position ought to be comparable with a person holding a similar position in the Factory Inspectorate, where qualifications are required? Will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Nugent: I think we have fully in mind the qualifications needed for this man, and we do intend to engage somebody fully comparable with the senior officers in the Factory Inspectorate.

National Food Survey

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the recently published National Food Survey, reprint 1955, relates to 1952; why these are so outdated; and when more recent surveys made by his Department will be available.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The 1952 Report was actually published in November, 1954, and, as the hon. Lady states, the edition to which she refers is a reprint. In addition, the 1953 Report was published in September, 1955, and the 1954 Report will be published in August.

Mrs. Mann: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend reads his own Reports? Is he aware that he gave me a misleading and inaccurate reply last week regarding these Reports, in which he said that in respect of only two of the main nutrients were children below the standard set by the British Medical Association? His Report shows that on the eight main items these children were well below the standard set by the British Medical Association. His right hon. Friend said that in six of the items they were higher. Will he promise to read this Report, and read it without standing on his head?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady has switched her supplementary question from what she asked in her main Question. In her main Question, she asks for the time taken to issue the Report. On that, we have a very good record indeed. She will see that the Report is now published after nineteen months, and in 1951 it took twenty-four months. If she wants further answers on the contents of the Report, perhaps she will put down Questions to my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Mann: It was he who gave me the misleading reply.

Milk and Welfare Foods (Subsidy Value)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the value of the milk and welfare foods to families of four children in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The estimated values of the subsidies on milk and welfare foods for an average family of four or more children during the past four years were:

1952
…
…
…
8s. 5d. a week


1953
…
…
…
9s. 7d. a week


1954
…
…
…
9s. 6d. a week


1955
…
…
…
8s. 11d. a week

Mrs. Mann: The 1952 Report gives the value of welfare and milk subsidies at 14s. 9d. for a family of four. Does the hon. Gentleman read these Reports standing on his head?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady is the one who really has not been careful in her reading. She will see that the original Question she put to my right hon. Friend, which elicited the Answer giving 14s. 9d. related to milk and all welfare foods. On this occasion, she asked particularly about


milk, and the Answer is as I have given it. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The hon. Lady asked the value of milk and welfare foods for families of four children in 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955. The answer of 8s. 11d. for 1955 is the correct answer to that.

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that, however one reads these Reports, the recent economy made at the expense of little children attending nursery schools is particularly mean?

Mr. Nicholls: However one reads the Report, one discovers that in 1950 they got 8s. 4½d. value, where today they get 8s. 11d.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

County School, North Elmham (Compulsory Purchase)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Health whether he will continue the negotiations to obtain possession of County School, North Elmham, Norfolk, for the purpose of accommodating high-grade mental deficients, or any other class of patients, in view of the fact that this large and substantial building is at present unused.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): I propose shortly to publish a draft compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Dye: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give great satisfaction to people in Norfolk?

Hospital, Plymouth (Operating Theatre)

Mr. J. J. Astor: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the recent death of a patient in the South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Greenbank, Plymouth, which was found to be due to infection caused by inadequate and dangerous conditions in the operating theatre.

Mr. Turton: I have asked the Regional Hospital Board for a full report on this case.

Mr. Astor: Can my right hon. Friend ascertain and confirm that at regular intervals for the last five years since June, 1951, the consulting surgeon has warned the hospital management committee that this operating theatre was dangerous and

that sooner or later a patient would die of gangrene, which has happened, and that these warnings have been passed to his Ministry and to the South-West Regional Hospital Board, but have gone unheeded?

Mr. Turton: That is, I think, the next Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an example of the danger of cuts in capital and other expenditure, and shows that had the work been carried out earlier, life might have been saved?

Mr. Turton: It would be most improper to prejudge this issue until I have received the report.

Mr. J. J. Astor: asked the Minister of Health what representations have been received by the South West Regional Hospital Board over the last eight years from the hospital management committee and medical staff about the inadequate and dangerous conditions in the operating theatre at the South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Greenbank, Plymouth.

Mr. Turton: The Board received five representations from the hospital management committee about the condition of this operating theatre; the earliest was in April, 1950, and the most recent in January, 1955. The committee, however, recommended higher priority for two other capital schemes in their group.

Mr. Astor: In view of the unfortunate circumstances in this case, will my right hon. Friend, in other similar cases, consider intervening when medical opinion is in conflict with that of the hospital management committee? Can he ensure that the hospital management committee publishes the reasons why it did not give priority for the rebuilding of this operating theatre?

Mr. Turton: It is quite clear that the hospital management committee took the view that the maternity unit was even worse than the operating theatre. That is why the maternity unit is already being attended to. I have now received a proposal for a new operating theatre. It was submitted to me on 19th June, and I approved the preparations of sketch plans on 23rd July. The work will go forward in due course.

Dr. Summerskill: When continuous adverse reports of this nature from a surgeon or physician are made to a regional hospital board, are they subsequently brought to the Minister's attention through the report of the hospital board; and what action does the Minister then take?

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Lady will put down a general Question, I will answer it.

South-West Middlesex

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Health the number of new hospitals planned to be built for the south-west area of Middlesex during the next five years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): None, Sir.

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Lady watch the needs of that area, where, because of the increased population, people sometimes have difficulty in getting beds in hospital?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Member knows, the planning of hospital and specialist services is a matter entirely for regional hospital boards, and we have received no recommendation for a new hospital in that area. The nearest major scheme is the rebuilding of Hillingdon Hospital, just north of the area which the hon. Member has in mind.

Tranquilliser Drugs (Cost)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give guidance in his "Notes to Prescribes" to general practitioners as to the cost of tranquilliser drugs.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend will certainly consider whether there is any information which general practitioners might find useful if circulated to them in this way.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could the hon. Lady encourage her right hon. Friend at least to make it quite clear that these drugs may cost anything up to 30s. or 35s. for a bottle of fifty of doubtful value, and that it is about time something was done about it?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Member knows very well, "Prescribers' Notes" is supervised by an editorial committee on which the British Medical

Association is represented. I agree that this might well be a matter that that committee could consider, but for the most part these drugs have only recently been introduced into this country and it is too early yet to say what effect they are having on prescribing.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Lady aware that because these drugs have been recently introduced from the United States, they are probably being widely advertised among doctors, and that the matter will soon become out of hand, and she should take action forthwith?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My reply to the first supplementary question indicated that we would refer it to the editorial committee.

Mental Patients (Detention)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health how many of the neglected persons whose cases have been reviewed are still retained in mental institutions and under what authority.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Of the cases reviewed, 2,172 are still detained in mental deficiency institutions on the authority of orders made by judicial authorities under the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Acts.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Do I understand from that Answer that in these cases fresh legal powers have been obtained for continued detention, and that the Minister is no longer relying on powers which he considered adequate in the past but which court action has proved not to be adequate?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No. The order of the judicial authority constitutes proper legal authority for the detention of the patient, unless and until it is set aside by a court of law. It should not be assumed that all the orders made by judicial authorities would necessarily be set aside if challenged. The review is, however, continuing.

St. George-in-the-East Hospital, Wapping

Mr. W. Edwards: asked the Minister of Health what decision he has now reached on the proposal by the North-East Regional Hospital Board to close down the St. George-in-the-East Hospital, Wapping, E.1.

Mr. Turton: I am today approving the proposal, subject to the proviso that the hospital shall not be closed before 30th September, 1956.

Mr. Edwards: In view of this disgraceful decision of the Minister as a result of a recommendation by the North-East Regional Hospital Board, supported by the Stepney Hospital Management Committee, will the Minister undertake in future to ensure that there will be representation upon these two bodies which can be left to put the case for the people of Stepney, Poplar and Bethnal Green when there is a question of closing down their hospitals for the first time under the National Health Service?

Mr. Turton: Before reaching this decision, I received a deputation from all those interested in the matter. I gave very careful consideration to it. I do not think any body can claim that its view has not been very fully put.

Mr. Hobson: Why pick on the East End?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Shop Assistants (Food Hygiene)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a regulation under Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, forbidding shop assistants from licking their fingers when picking up paper in which to wrap food.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The powers already given by the Regulations should be adequate.

Mr. Albu: Will the hon. Lady at least condemn this disgusting and much too prevalent habit?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am quite prepared to condemn the habit; but I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that to specify any particular offence might well provide leaks for those unspecified. Regulations 8 and 9 are phrased generally so as to cover all such unpleasant practices.

General Practitioners (Earnings)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Health the average net earnings of a general medical practitioner in the National Health Service; what they were

in 1939; and by what percentage they have risen.

Mr. Turton: The present average net earnings of a general medical practitioner after meeting his practice expenses are £2,222 a year. The corresponding figure for 1939 was £938 and the percentage increase is therefore 136·9 per cent.

Mr. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that as money has fallen to one-third of its purchasing power since 1939, doctors are therefore no better off in real purchasing power than at that-time? Secondly, would he not agree that those working in rural areas, who are "on tap" seven days a week, fully earn what they get?

Mr. Turton: I certainly agree that doctors working in both rural and urban areas deserve well of the community.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that but for the difficult economic circumstances of the country, he would consider that the doctors have a good case for an increase?

Mr. Turton: My reply to the claim was on the basis that in present circumstances it would not be right to give consideration to a claim for a general increase in remuneration.

Dr. Summerskill: How does the Minister reconcile that Answer with the recommendations of the Spens Committee?

Mr. Turton: The Spens Committee did not lay down any contractual obligation in this matter. It based its recommendation on what should be the level at which doctors entered the National Health Service.

Invalid Cars and Tricycles (Rear Lamps)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health whether British firms were invited to tender for the supply of 21,390 rear lamps for invalid cars; and why German lamps or parts of lamps are being issued.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on his policy of distributing free of charge to war disabled persons red rear lights for their invalid tricycles; and why, in view of the need to conserve foreign currency, these were purchased from Germany.

Mr. G. Darling: asked the Minister of Health why he is supplying lamps made in Germany to be fitted to invalids' motor chairs to conform with the new lighting regulations.

Mr. Turton: Four British firms were invited to quote on equal terms for rear lamps to be fitted to motor cars and power-propelled tricycles on loan to disabled persons. The lowest satisfactory quotations were accepted. I understand that the lamps supplied are imported by the contractor from Germany under open general licence.

Mr. Hynd: Were the four firms selected firms or was the tender advertised? Is any precaution taken to ensure that British materials are used in a case like this?

Mr. Turton: The four firms, who were invited, were the four leading firms who would be likely to provide adequate lamps to be fitted to the tricycles. In fact, these lamps are already fitted to the Harper tricycle, and have been for many years.

Mr. K. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether one of the factors taken into consideration in deciding where the contract should go was the sense of outrage which some of these men feel at bearing the "Made in Germany" mark before them, when they lost their limbs fighting against the Germans?

Mr. Turton: The primary consideration was whether these lamps and fittings would suit the tricycles. In fact, these were the most suitable lamps for the purpose, and they have been used for many years on Harper tricycles.

Mr. Darling: Did the four tenders from British firms all quote the same price? Did the tender which was accepted indicate that the lamps would not be made in this country?

Mr. Turton: The four tenders did not all ask the same price. This was, as I said, the lowest satisfactory quotation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put the second question down.

Mr. Darling: But this Question has been on the Paper for some time. Surely the Minister should know whether the tenders indicated whether or not the lamps would be manufactured in Germany or by the firms which submitted the tenders?

Mr. Turton: It was certainly known before the tenders were accepted that the lamps were German lamps.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman really not have got British lamps for this purpose? Having regard to the special circumstances pertaining to the use of these lamps, would it not have been worth while going out of his way to get British lamps for this purpose?

Mr. Turton: The four firms asked to tender were Joseph Lucas, Ltd., Remax, Ltd., Flexible Lamps, Ltd., and A. C. Withnell, Ltd., which are four of the leading firms in this business, and we had to accept the lowest satisfactory tender.

SUEZ CANAL

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Suez Canal.
As a first step, measures have been taken, with effect from last Friday, in relation to Egypt's sterling balances and the assets of the Canal Company. An order has been made under the Exchange Control Act which has the effect of putting Egypt out of the transferable account area and generally making all transactions on Egyptian controlled sterling accounts subject to permission.
Secondly, a direction has been made under Regulation 2 (a) of the Defence (Finance) Regulations safeguarding the securities and gold of the Suez Canal Company.
The Governments of the Commonwealth countries were given early information of the situation as it affects this country and the Commonwealth, and close touch is being maintained with them.
Yesterday afternoon the French Foreign Minister M. Pineau and Mr. Murphy of the American State Department came to London for consultations with Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary took part in discussions with them which lasted until a late hour last night. They are continuing today. I cannot, therefore, say more about them at this stage.
This much, however, I can say. No arrangements for the future of this great international waterway could be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government which would leave it in the unfettered control of a single Power which could, as recent events have shown, exploit it purely for purposes of national policy.

Mr. Gaitskell: Although there are a number of questions in the minds, I am sure, of all of us, in view of the fact that consultations are continuing, I do not think it would be wise to put them to the Prime Minister today. I would, however, ask him whether he hopes to be able to make a further statement tomorrow. Can he, at any rate, give us an assurance that the fullest possible statement will be made before the Recess?

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly can give the last-named assurance. I hope it will be possible to make a statement on the outcome of the discussions tomorrow, or, failing that, at the latest the day after. I know that the House will feel that it is important that these discussions should be fully concluded, after really adequate discussions, between the parties concerned. That is the only reason why I would rather not pledge myself to tomorrow. It may be Wednesday. In either case, the House will be fully informed.

Mr. Maclay: In view of the conditions in the Suez nationalisation law that employees of the Canal Company must continue with their duties under threat of from three to fifteen years' imprisonment, can my right hon. Friend say what is the position of British subjects who are employees of the Canal Company?

The Prime Minister: As I understand, the Canal Company is at present considering its position, which, of course, affects all the company's employees, many of whom are not British. So far as we are concerned, the Government regard it as unacceptable that British subjects should be ordered to stay, or kept as hostages, or under any form of duress.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether it is true, as the Press report, that 140 ships seem to have gone through the Suez Canal yesterday, paying dues amounting to £150,000? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that

Colonel Nasser has said that he intends to encourage trade through the Canal to get money for the dam? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us he has considered that economic warfare against Egypt may have serious repercussions upon the trade of this country?

The Prime Minister: I understand that ships are going through the Canal. I am not prepared to say in detail at the moment to whom they are paying their dues. That raises a number of difficult questions. I do say that Colonel Nasser's proposition that the Canal should be run to pay for the dam in Egypt is quite unacceptable in relation to his many engagements in international law.

Captain Waterhouse: In view of the vital importance of this matter, and the extremely critical position which has been reached, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity of discussing this before it rises? May 1, on my own behalf at least, say that I am quite sure that the majority of hon. Members of this House would welcome a further sitting, or a prolongation of a sitting, rather than that we should go into recess leaving the matter in the uncertain condition in which it is at present?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter which, if I may say so, the Leader of the Opposition left very wisely at the moment, in the light of our discussions. We are now having international discussions. Before the House is due to rise, I hope that I or my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to make a statement about the result of those international discussions. As to a debate in the House, I think that we have to consider the repercussions of that debate in all their aspects. Naturally, I would not resist that if it were the request of all the House. At the same time, I think we have to bear in mind that we had better see, first, where we are in agreement in the discussions which are now taking place.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I suggest that this matter should be discussed through the usual channels in the light of the developments of those consultations?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Would it not be rather a pity to hold a


debate at this time, however much the House may want it? Probably the more talk we have during this critical stage, the more help we may give to Colonel Nasser. Would not, therefore, a policy of silence be better, followed by quick, decisive action? Whatever action is taken by the Government, all of us feel confident that it will not be the shameful policy followed at Abadan.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend. I think his observations show the usefulness of our joint decision to handle this matter through the usual channels.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Prime Minister say whether there are any export licences for the movement of war materials in the offing within the next few days? Can he give an assurance that
in the case of any war material that is likely to be moved, for which licences have been issued, the licences will be cancelled? I was on the Dock Road and saw in the dock in Liverpool the "Star of Luxor", one of the ships which regularly carries ammunition, spare parts and armaments to Alexandria.

The Prime Minister: All exports of war material to Egypt have been stopped.

Mr. Bellenger: Does that include the two destroyers which this country has recenty sold to Egypt?

The Prime Minister: I do not know where they are, but I think that we can leave it to the Royal Navy. It will take care of them wherever they are.

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SEYCHELLES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House on the question of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles. I apologise for the fact that it is rather longer than my usual statements, but the matter is not free from difficulty and it has been rather troublesome.
On Wednesday last, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) had Questions on the Order Paper asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposed to

take on a petition from the Seychelles asking that the Chief Justice should not be reappointed. The answer was that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to accede to the request, whereupon the hon. Member for Islington, East asked a supplementary question in which he stated that grave allegations were made by large numbers of leading citizens of the Colony against the Chief Justice.
I must confess that I had some doubts about the propriety of the hon. Member's words about a judge, but I was inhibited at that moment from intervening by a general bias in favour of freedom of speech and by a doubt as to how the gentleman in question stood with regard to our general rule against criticising judges.
I remembered, and have now looked up, a debate which took place on the Adjournment on 3rd June, 1949, when the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) was criticising the Acting Attorney-General of the Seychelles. In support of his argument, the hon. Member quoted remarks made by the Chief Justice about the Acting Attorney-General. In his reply to the debate, in defence of the Acting Attorney-General, Mr. Rees-Williams, as he then was, who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, criticised the language used by the Chief Justice. He said, for example:
I do not agree that that language was justified. I think it was extreme and flam-bouyant language for a judge to use, particularly as no personal matter was involved.
Later, Mr. Rees-Williams said:
I think that the language he used "—
That was the Chief Justice—
was extreme in view of the fact that there was no personal benefit to Mr. Collet."—
Mr. Collet was the Acting Attorney-General.
Therefore, to talk about a man as a blackmailer and the like when he is rather over-zealous as a public servant is not language which one would expect to be used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 2471–2.]
This criticism of a judge here might not have been permitted except on a substantive Motion, and this made me think that there was, in the view of the Colonial Office, something in the status of the Chief Justice in the Seychelles which distinguished him from a judge here. I could see that there were bound to be such differences.
High Court judges here are, by the Act of Settlement, removable only by an Address from both Houses of Parliament. Their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. They are thus rendered independent of the Executive. This is a wise provision of our Constitution, because it has often been the duty of the courts to give judgments adverse to the claims of the Executive—notably by the issue of the writ of habeas corpus.
The appointment of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles was by a document under the Public Seal of the Colony, similar in form to Letters Patent. This was signed by
the Governor in the name of His Majesty on 10th December, 1948. It is important, I think, to look at the powers which exist for his removal. In law, he holds office at the pleasure of the Crown, but, in fact, the procedure for his removal is governed by Colonial Regulations 63, 68 and 76.
These Regulations provide for the formulation of charges of misconduct, etc., and for their investigation by a judicial commission. Then, if the Governor is satisfied that the judge should be dismissed, Regulation 63 lays down that the question of dismissal or of inflicting any other penalties upon the judge must be referred by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, unless the judge in question requests that it should not be so referred.
It seems to me that the true purpose of these Regulations is to endeavour to maintain the independence of the judiciary against the Executive. It follows, therefore, I think, that the Colonial Secretary has not a free hand in dismissing the Chief Justice.
The only precedent which I can find, which seems to bear on this matter, occurred on 27th June, 1912. There was a debate on the Adjournment in which the hon. Member who had the Floor said of an Indian judge:
…I do declare of this particular judge who passed this judgment, that his political feelings are so strong that—
Mr. Speaker Lowther intervened and said:
The hon. Member, if he is going to attack the judiciary in India, should bear in mind the rule which obtains in this country. If an attack is made on the judiciary here it must be made in due form after notice and on a separate

Motion. The hon. Member referred just now to the criticism passed upon Mr. Justice Grantham. That was passed after due notice had been given and on a special Motion calling his action in question. I think the same procedure might properly be applied to judges in other parts of the Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1912; Vol. XL, c. 622.]
Therefore, for the purposes of the Ruling which I have been asked to give, I rest myself on the deep constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary from the Executive. It is the Executive which hon. Members are entitled to attack, on Supply, and the Executive only. I must rule that the complaint against the Chief Justice must be by way of Motion and should not be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are obliged, to you, Sir, for your statement. As I understand, your Ruling is that a debate concerning the Chief Justice could take place only on a Motion. May I put this point, with respect? This matter arose because a number of responsible citizens in the Seychelles presented a petition to the Secretary of State requesting the Secretary of State to give consideration to their complaints and, in particular, asking the Secretary of State not to renew the term of the appointment of the Chief Justice. Would it be in order for the debate to proceed on the question of a petition from those responsible citizens, and, if so, would hon. Members be in order, in that debate, in urging that the Secretary of State should proceed on the basis of that petition with regard to the judge's future?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the action of the Secretary of State in refusing to grant the prayer of the petition is a proper subject for debate but, as I have said, criticism of the Chief Justice as such would not be proper. If the debate could be conducted without infringing the Rule about a Motion being necessary in respect of the Chief Justice, it would be in order. However, hon. Members may think this over and reflect that what I am saying now is rather like the judgment of Portia in "The Merchant of Venice", when she said that Shylock could have his pound of flesh but must not shed any blood with it.

Mr. Griffiths: If the debate be proceeded with on the basis that there was a petition praying the Secretary of State not to reappoint the Chief Justice to his present position, then, clearly, the terms of the petition would have to be made


known to the House by those who took part in the debate. Would that be in order?

Mr. Speaker: I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not seen the petition and, therefore, do not know what is in it. However, if it were possible to discuss the question without transgressing the rule about criticising the judiciary, except by notice and on a Motion, I can see nothing wrong, but I would not like to give a Ruling in advance on this subject.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will there not be a rather confused position arising, Sir, if it is regarded as being in order on the Consolidated Fund Bill to discuss the action or inaction of the Colonial Secretary on a petition to remove, or not to reappoint, a Chief Justice if, in the course of that debate, it is impossible to refer to the reasons for or against the petition or the Minister's decision? Is there any way in which the petition can then be discussed, and still be in order within the terms of your Ruling this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to be very difficult. I did not like to prejudge the question, because I have not seen the petition and what it alleges, but I think myself that, from the point of view of the House, it would be more convenient to discuss the whole matter on a Motion, which would give the House perfect freedom in the matter and would not raise these awkward questions of order.
There is another aspect of the matter which is not necessary for my Ruling, but which the House may think of some importance. The allegations which the hon. Member for Islington, East repeated, were not his own allegations, but he mentioned them as relevant to the situation. They are of a grave character and, on reflection, perhaps the House may think that it is fair to the man concerned that the discussion of these allegations should take place on a Motion on which the House could express an opinion, rather than that it should be introduced on the Consolidated Fund Bill, when no Vote will be taken and an injustice may be done by aspersions which are not recorded as the view of the House. The purpose of a Motion is to ascertain the view of the House on the matter, and that is not gained by a discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: As I understand, Mr. Speaker, what you have just been good enough to say raises a question of procedure. Would I be right in thinking that on the Consolidated Fund Bill it would be perfectly in order to criticise the action of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reappointing the Chief Justice to the Seychelles, notwithstanding a petition lodged contrary to that decision by a large number of leading citizens in the Seychelles? Secondly, may I ask you to rule, Sir, whether, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, it would be in order to raise the entire question of the administration of justice in the Seychelles, including the conduct of the Chief Justice?

Mr. Speaker: That is the difficulty I foresee. I think it would be difficult for hon. Members to deal with this subject satisfactorily without being free to say what they want to say about the Chief Justice. I can foresee great difficulties about that, and I think that freedom can only be achieved by means of a Motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, as did my right hon. Friend, for the very great care you have obviously taken in preparing the statement which you have just made? We are in a rather difficult position on this matter. The Chief Justice has been the subject of allegations of a fairly serious character, and I am sure it is the wish of all of us that this business should be cleared up. That is what we want to see done. That is why we asked the Colonial Secretary for an inquiry, and it would facilitate the situation enormously if the right hon. Gentleman would conduct that inquiry.
Failing that, it seems to me that there are great difficulties about putting down a "Motion to be discussed during the day on which we debate the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Traditionally, of course, it is the right of any hon. Member to raise any matter he likes on this Bill. Therefore, it would be interfering seriously with the rights of hon. Members if we were, so to speak, to take the Bill formally or to short-cut the proceedings, in order to debate a Motion of this kind.
On the other hand, if we do not put down a Motion, you yourself have pointed out that there are great difficulties in debating the matter during the Consolidated Fund Bill discussion itself. Therefore, apparently, we are left in the


position of not being able to do anything about this matter until the autumn. That is itself very unsatisfactory. I would like to make an appeal to the Colonial Secretary—I am not asking him for an immediate statement—to consider, between now and the Recess, whether it would not be in the interests of everybody concerned, not least the Chief Justice of the Seychelles, to agree to the inquiry for which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has asked.
There is, however, one other point which I would like to put to you, if I may, Sir. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East also raised the matter of Privilege. You ruled that prima facie this was not a matter of Privilege, on the ground, as I understood it—or largely on the ground—taking into account previous similar cases, that the person concerned, namely, the Chief Justice, was under the jurisdiction and authority of the Colonial Secretary, and that, therefore, there was a way out for hon. Members if they had a case where there had been interference with the right of a subject of Her Majesty to get into touch with Parliament; there was a way out because we could criticise the Minister concerned. If I recollect correctly, you instanced the case of the Secretary of State for War in connection with some instance where there had been some similar interference.
We have, however, been told by you this afternoon that the Chief Justice of the Seychelles is not under the authority of the Colonial Secretary in that sense, and it therefore appears that the grounds on which you ruled that this was not Privilege—if I have misunderstood you. Sir, you will tell me—are not quite so strong as when you made the Ruling a day or two ago. Failing that, may I put this to you? Is it the case, then, that a judge in the position of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles can, in fact, issue a general search warrant which appears to be related to the efforts of a subject of Her Majesty to get into touch with Parliament, and that no question of Privilege can arise, and, nevertheless, we find ourselves in the greatest possible difficulty even in debating his action?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I hope there is no misunderstanding about what I said on

Privilege. On the Privilege issue, I said that it was not an issue of Privilege for any third party to interfere with the correspondent of a Member of Parliament because he had written to him. That would be quite irrespective of whether there was another remedy by way of administrative or legal action. I said that in this case the question which arose could be dealt with by administrative action or by legal action if it was an illegal warrant, but that was not the ground of my judgment on Privilege.
The ground of my judgment on Privilege is that there is no recorded case of the House ever having considered it a breach of its Privilege if a third party exercises pressure or influence upon the correspondent of a Member of Parliament. It rests solely on that ground, and not on the ground that there are alternative means of considering the matter.
I might say here that I realise the difficulties that hon. Members are in at this late part of the Session. That was in my mind when I was considering this complicated matter. If there is to be a Motion, as it looks as if there must be, it will have to go over until the autumn. However I cannot help that, because the matter was raised very late, only the other day. The House would perhaps agree with me that it would be better for us to wait a little, rather than to set a false precedent on this great constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it must be in order, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, to raise the action of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reappointing for a further period a Chief Justice of the Seychelles notwithstanding a petition against his reappointment, signed by a large number of citizens in the Seychelles? With great respect, I submit that it must be in order for the House, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, to criticise and censure, if it thinks right, the attitude of the Colonial Secretary in making a reappointment in those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: That would be quite in order, but I am merely suggesting that the hon. Member might find it difficult to support his Motion without infringing the rule. If he thinks he can support his Motion without infringing the rule, he is welcome to try so far as I am concerned.

Mr. Bowles: Might I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that they might, in agreement with the Government, put down a Motion to be debated for, say, an hour and a half or two hours and take the decision which you have rightly suggested, and then, as the first Order of the Day after, that we could have the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Speaker: These matters are not for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, the Road Traffic Bill and the Marriage (Scotland) Bill and on the Motion in the name of Mr. R. A. Butler relating to Procedure, exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

4.2 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: It is unusual to address oneself to this Motion, but, as I have a grouse, I propose to do so very briefly.
There are nearly 60 Lords Amendments set down for consideration. The first time they appeared on the Order Paper was on Friday morning. That was the first time that we had had the Amendments laid out in a way in which they were capable of convenient consideration by the Opposition. It is true that, by going through everything done in another place, it has been possible, with great labour and the expenditure of considerable time, to work out what the Amendments are, but that is not the way to treat the House. We have also had the advantage of notes upon the Amendments which have very kindly been provided by the President of the Board of Trade. I must say that it would have saved a little time if he had sent them direct to those of us who are concerned instead of sending them through the usual channels.
This has meant very considerable inconvenience to us in considering the Amendments. There is a great number of them. I agree at once that many of them are drafting, but they all have to be worked through. My hon. Friends and I cannot simply accept the ipse dixit of even the helpful memorandum from the President of the Board of Trade; we have to work through the Amendments and see how they fit in. We have to consider each one of them, even the drafting ones. Not having the Lords Amendments in a convenient form until such a late time as Friday morning, when a considerable number of hon. Members have engagements in the country and have to leave Westminster, it has been impossible to give adequate consideration to a Bill of the complexity of this one, with this number of Amendments, in the time which has been available. It is not treating the House with consideration or even with


courtesy. I am not charging that against the President himself—certainly not, because I know he has to work to a timetable which is set down for him by his rather more powerful right hon. Friend—but it is not right that we should have to deal with the Lords Amendments in this way.
My hon. Friends and I, as the President knows perfectly well, have co-operated on this Bill the whole way through in order to enable us to have proper consideration of complexities which affect nearly all our industry, and it is important that all these matters should continue to receive proper consideration, not only from the Government but also from the Opposition. Such consideration cannot be given to the Amendments, and has not been given to them, except at the very greatest inconvenience. It is scant courtesy and complete lack of consideration to produce Amendments like this for the first time on Friday morning and expect us to meet on Monday and do our best upon them—which we shall, of course, endeavour to do.
I warn the President that it will now take more time to have the Amendments explained at this stage than it would have done if my right hon. and hon. Friends and I had had adequate time to consider them. If we had had time to do so, doubtless we could have taken a great many of the Amendments on the nod. As it is, on going through the Amendments there have been matters which we have queried and to which we have not had time to work out the full answer, and we shall expect answers as we go through the Amendments today.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I do not for a moment say that there is no substance in the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas.) These are complicated matters. I myself find them complicated. I fully appreciate that it is not easy to take a mass of Amendments over a very wide field and study them at short notice. I hoped that the short memorandum which we made available as an ordinary courtesy of debate to the hon. and learned Gentleman might be of some assistance.
All quarters of the House have cooperated very well in the passage of the Bill, with the result that the Measure has

been greatly improved. We are in a sense, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, rather the prisoners of our position at this stage in the Session. I can assure him that there was no conscious discourtesy on my part. I myself should have preferred a little more time. All I can say is that I will do my very best in this complicated matter, as I have done throughout our discussions, to make such knowledge as we have on these matters available to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF REGISTRAR.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 16, at end insert:
and as if the regulations referred to in that Act included any document issued by the Registrar.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment has a short and simple purpose. In the Bill as drafted the certified copy procedure could really be used to prove only the regulations which are contained in Clause 18, and it has been thought that it might be convenient—I think it certainly would be convenient—to allow the certified copy procedure to be used for other purposes, such as the normal proof of notice served by the Registrar, which can conveniently be done by incorporating the words in the Amendment. This will save time and money.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 41, after "a" insert "superior".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This meets a point which was originally made by, I think, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) at one stage of the Bill when I was asked what the position was about a writ of certiorari or mandamus, which threw up the question as to just what would be the relation between the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and Divisions


of the High Court. The matter has been considered by the Law Officers and my
noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It has been decided that the best course to adopt is that the Court should be upon the same level as the Divisions of the High Court, although it will not, of course, be a Division of the High Court, and a writ of certiorari or mandamus would not issue against it. There is a precedent for this in Section 17 (6) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6.—(AGREEMENTS TO WHICH PART I APPLIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 38, after "between" insert "two or more."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential to the proposed Amendment in page 6, line 31.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 6, leave out from "conditions" to end of line.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words
(on other than terms as to prices)
were inserted to distinguish between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of Clause 6 (1), but a doubt was raised whether the words "other than terms" should have been "other than terms and conditions." We do not want any misunderstanding about this and the simplest thing would be to leave out the phrase. There may be some overlap between paragraphs (a) and (b), but I do not think that that matters. Rather than have some doubt whether there is a difference between "terms" and "conditions", it may be simpler to leave out the words in brackets.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 29, after "obligation" insert:
whether express or implied and.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a clarifying Amendment which, if my memory serves me right, was urged upon us during the Report stage of the Bill. It was felt that some of these obligations are not necessarily express. They may well be implied, as, for example, where a man says that he will agree to sell 90 per cent. of his output to a particular customer when there is an implied obligation that he will not sell more than 10 per cent. to anybody else. These things can generally be expressed in a positive or negative sense and, on reflection, we have weighed the arguments addressed to us from various sides of the House and have felt it right to include these words in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 9, leave out from "association" to "as" in line 11.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient if with this we took the proposed Amendment in page 6, line 12.
As we amended the Bill on Report, we brought within Part I of the Bill agreements where there were two or more British parties, even though the restrictions were accepted by
two or more foreign parties. As we drafted it, where the British parties were in a trade association, we did not allow the trade association to count as one party. We said that that still meant two British parties, but we did not cover the point where the two foreign parties were in a trade association. It would defeat the object of the exercise if the two foreign parties who accepted restrictions could avoid the whole position of being registered if they merely entered into a trade association.
The object and effect of the Amendment is simply to put foreign parties and British parties in the same position, that is to say, that a trade association of either is counted as two persons.

4.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am completely stupefied by that explanation. I accept what the President of the Board of Trade says, but I completely fail to see how it works out. I have had the advantage of considering this with my


hon. and right hon. Friends and it did not occur to any of us—and in saying this I am giving away no State secret—that that was the explanation of the Amendment. As the Clause stands unamended it provides that
This Part of this Act shall apply in relation to any agreement made by a trade association the members of which consist of or include persons carrying on business as mentioned in subsection (1) ….
The words which the Amendment propose to leave out include the word "include".
I wonder whether the Amendment so drafted might not inadvertently achieve the result that the members of the trade association had to be people who were suppliers or dealers within the meaning of Clause 6 (1), but I gather that that is not the intention. The Amendment goes on to provide that an agreement shall be treated as if it were an agreement between all persons who are members of the association, apparently whether or not they are persons who are suppliers, dealers, and so on, within the meaning of Clause 6(1.)
I am not sure whether my fears are substantiated. I am not sure whether there is anything in what I have suggested. I completely fail to see how the right hon. Gentleman gets from this Amendment the explanation which he has just given. I do not want a textual criticism or anything in detail of that sort, nor am I asking for a construction for the Chancery Courts, but if the right hon. Gentleman can explain a little more closely the wording of the Amendment we shall be grateful.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: By leave of the House, I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will not get the sort of construction he may have got in a Chancery Court, but I will do my best. I get what I have said from the first part of the Amendment. As it was originally drafted, the subsection referred to an association the members of which consisted of or included persons carrying on business and who were carrying on business in the United Kingdom. What I want to do is, so to speak, to straddle "association" beyond that to cover people who might not be carrying on business in the United Kingdom, but who were accepting the restrictions—and it is

accepting the restrictions which is the important thing from the point of view of registration.
The Amendment will permit the subsection to cover not only people who are members of the association, but people who are represented by such members, who ought to be included. The hon. and learned Member is quite right, the main purpose is to apply the "association rule", if I may call it that, to people other than those carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 12, leave out "those persons" and insert:
all persons who are members of the association or are represented thereon by such members".

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 20, leave out from "any" to "the" in line 21 and insert: "matter described in".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to consider this Amendment and the proposed Lords Amendment to line 23 at the same time. 
This Amendment deals with the question of recommendations by a trade association. What is registrable under the Bill as we amended it is really the constitution of the trade association. If it happened that the restriction was written into the constitution of the trade association all would be well, but very often it is not. Very often the constitution of the trade association is only the rules about the appointment of the chairman, the payment of the secretary and all the ordinary things which go to make the constitution of a trade association. If the restriction is not written in, but is, in fact, a recommendation, this Amendment, with the Lords Amendment proposed to page 10, line 25, to which we shall be coming later, arranges for the recommendation to be registered as well. Otherwise it would be quite impossible for anyone to see what, in fact, the real purpose was.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Although we are not quarrelling with the main purpose here, may I ask the President what is the verbal explanation, as


it were, of this Amendment to line 20? We are leaving out the words
in respect of any such matters as are described in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the said subsection (1),
and we are saying instead "matter described in." It appears to have become singular instead of plural, but it seems very difficult to see how there could be any difference in the meaning as between "such matter described in" and "any matter described in" the whole subsection. If there is no difference, why is the Minister making the change?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no difference; it is just shorter.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 23, leave out from "association" to end of line 27 and insert:
notwithstanding any provision to the contrary therein, as if it contained a term by which each such member and any person represented on the association by any such member agreed to comply with those recommendations and any subsequent recommendations made to them by or on behalf of the association as to the action to be taken by them in relation to the same class of goods or process of manufacture and in respect of the same matter.
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 31, at end insert:
and for the purposes of this section, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a matter which we have debated on a very large number of occasions. I do not think I need enlarge upon it now. It is more of a drafting matter than anything else. I am advised that it is better to put these words at the end of Clause 6. As the House will see, they have been removed from the beginning of Clause 7 and we shall also refer to this matter under Clause 8. For the sake of clarity it is thought better to put in these words here and they link with an earlier Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(EXCEPTED AGREEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: Divide Clause 7 into two clauses, the first to consist of subsections (3), (4), (11) and (12). and

the second to consist of subsections (1), (2), (5) to (10) inclusive, and (13.)

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The best case for dividing Clause 7 into two is that it was far too long. There are a number of other quite complicated reasons, but I should like to rest myself on that reason.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: If we agree to this Lords Amendment in this form shall we not be prejudicing several Lords Amendments which are to follow? In the Bill as drafted I understand that there is no subsection (13) and if we pass this Amendment I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether or not we shall be in difficulty when we consider a subsequent Amendment which would become subsection (13.)

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is what is called a paving Amendment and that it would not hamper debate on subsequent Amendments if this were accepted. It might be that the pavement would be left rather in the air.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I understood that the case for an earlier Amendment was that it would make the Bill shorter and that the case for this Amendment is that it would make the Bill longer, but that does not make it any more objectionable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), I was confused about subsection (13.) Apparently he has found that subsection (13) is referred to somewhere else, but I have not been able to trace that. I suppose that we are to have a subsection (13) and that it is in order.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that it will be possible to discuss the point later when we come to line 42.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6 leave out lines 35 to 37.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 42, at end insert:
(3) In determining whether an agreement to which iron and steel producers as defined by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, are party, whether with or without other parties, is an agreement to which this part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term whether


expressed or implied which has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Board of Trade—

(a) by which those producers agree to acquire raw materials or other iron and steel products as so defined exclusively from a person who undertakes as a common service for the iron and steel industry the importation of those materials or products, or the distribution of those materials or products when imported or from any person nominated by such a person; or
(b) by which any such person agrees to supply such materials or products exclusively to those producers."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment raises a rather technical point about steel. Ordinarily, any restrictive practices which may exist
in the steel industry are treated the same as any restrictive practices in any other industry. That is to say, if they fall within the broad concept of Clause 6, they come before the Court; but there is a technical and rather difficult matter which arises under Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act. Under that Section, certain powers are given to the Steel Board, and in part, to the Board of Trade, which place certain responsibilities upon them. I am not going to spell out those powers and responsibilities in detail—the Act is available—but they are concerned with the import of raw materials and of finished products. If the Steel Board is not satisfied about the way that is being done and think, that it is in the public interest to do so, subject to certain matters laid down, it can, either itself directly or through agents, arrange for those particular functions to be carried out as a common service.
If the Board did that there would be no question of it being subject to the Act, and it would be a little anomalous to arrange for it to be out of the Act if it does it itself but somehow in the Act if it is a matter approved by the Board but done by the industry itself. What we have done here is to exclude it provided it has been approved both by the Iron and Steel Board and the Board of Trade. We have put in both because both are referred to in Section 11 of the Act, and also because I think it right to maintain the general principle that either things ought to be expressly authorised by statute, in which case they are out, or subject to the Court. If there is a special,

exceptional case of this character owing to another statute, I think it probably right that a Minister should be answerable in the last resort in this House so that if there is any question he can be asked about it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: It seems that we are here returning through the looking glass to the world of commonsense. The President is saying that the Iron and Steel Board has power, through a body known as the Iron and Steel Corporation—at least, it used to be called that—to act as a monopoly importer of certain iron and steel products, and he is asking us to agree that if it does that with the approval of the Board of Trade, it shall not be subject to the machinery of the Bill. In our efforts to disentangle the debates in another place, and before we had these extra documents to help us, we felt rather anxious about the possibility that the Iron and Steel Board might be given power to approve various arrangements which left them outside the scope of the Measure and not subject to the President of the Board of Trade.
As we now understand it, the approval of the President is required as well as that of the Board. Therefore, rather ironically, unlike other parts of the Bill', this is presumably subject to Question and answer in the House. So here, by a rather curious circuitous route, we seem to have reached a situation which is even more welcome to us than some other parts of the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am concerned only to know whether subsection (1) has not already made sufficient provision to deal with the point covered by this Lords Amendment. I would ask for consideration to be given to that possibility. If I have quite misconceived the matter, I ask the Committee's forgiveness.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Subsection (1) would not be sufficient. Although it could be, it is not yet ex hypothesi expressly authorised by Statute. If it were so expressly authorised, it is quite true that the Iron and Steel Board could do either of these things, subject to various precautions—including, on occasions, approval by the Board of Trade. The Iron and Steel Board has not yet done so. It would be anomalous to say


that when a certain practice was continuing with the full approval of the Iron and Steel Board, it should then be either taken over and done by the Board itself or referred to the Court, and it is necessary to put in some words to cover the position. It is an exceptional and rather technical position, but I think that it has been rightly dealt with here and, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have observed, there is a complete safeguard, in that the Minister is answerable for anything done.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to "an" in line 44 and insert "In determining whether".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient if, together with this Amendment, we took the Amendment in line 45. These are really only drafting Amendments. We have divided the Clause into two parts, and in the first part we deal with those cases where no account shall be taken of the particular matters referred to. These Amendments simply put the matter into the same phraseology as the rest of the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 45, at end insert:
is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term".
Lords Amendment: In page 7, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the supply of goods between two persons, neither of whom is a trade association within the meaning of section six of this Act, being an agreement to which no other person is party and under which no such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section six of this Act are accepted other than".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We have now moved on to the sole agency provisions. The object of the Amendment is to make certain that an exclusive dealing agreement which goes beyond goods of the same description is registrable, provided that the two parties

have accepted the restrictions—as is common in all these matters. Although, on Report, I stated that the position was quite clear, some doubt was expressed whether the provision affected goods of the same description. I think that those doubts have now been cleared up. Otherwise, this is really a drafting Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: We recognise that that is the aim of the Amendment, and we welcome it. There is merely one very small drafting point to which I would draw the attention of the President. The first three lines of the proposed insertion are:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement for the supply of goods between two persons, neither of whom is a trade association…
One would not normally regard a trade association as coming within the definition of "a person". I was a little concerned about the effect upon other parts of the Bill of treating a trade association as a person within the meaning of the term as used in the Amendment, but I think that the position is probably safeguarded by the various definitions in other parts of the Bill. I have not gone through the Clauses to check all the definitions, but it seemed to me that a little difficulty might be created, and I suggest that this is a matter to which the President either has given or should give a little attention.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I know that considerable attention has been given to this point. If such an agreement were incorporated a trade association might have been treated as a person in this subsection. It was therefore necessary to exclude it. We have been careful to see that these arrangements cannot be avoided by forming trade associations, and we think that we have achieved that end.

Mr. Donald Wade: I did not hear the words used by the President in moving the Amendment. Did I understand him to say that, as a result of the Amendment, if there is an exclusive dealing arrangement which
contains some other condition, whereby one or other of the parties is restricted in the acquisition of other goods, that agreement will be brought within this part of the Bill? I do not see how that follows, but I understood the President to say that.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is making a fair point. The Clause, as amended, will do two things. I understand that there was some doubt about the question of goods of a different description under the original drafting. Whatever was the doubt about the
original drafting, it is manifestly removed now. That is the first thing. The other thing is that the words inserted ensure that an agreement between not more than two parties, neither of whom is a trade association—which is the only combination excluded—is not covered by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 16, leave out:
for the purpose of resale

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes a small improvement to subsection (4, a). A sole agency agreement may be in a form where the manufacturer will say, "I will not sell to other wholesalers." That is quite a common form of agreement. Equally, it is very common form for him to say, "I will not sell myself." That would be a reasonable precaution to put in. If one sells to a firm in Brighton it would be reasonable to say that one will not sell to other wholesalers there. Unless one was empowered to put that in it would be a rather peculiar sort of sole agency agreement. This is an adaptation to conform to the normal, very common form sole agency agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 45, leave out from "applied" to end of line 2 on page 8.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Lords Amendment to page 9, line 3, at the end to insert the new subsection (12.)
These Amendments take up again the question of the inter-connected body corporate, and what has been done is to apply that to the whole of what are now Clauses 7 and 8 to make it clear that, where we are

dealing with restrictions under the one or the other, inter-connected bodies corporate are excluded.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 36, at end insert:
and subsection (7) of section six of this Act shall not apply in relation to recommendations relating exclusively to such matters as aforesaid.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the Bill as we dealt with it on the last occasion in the Commons, we made it clear that overseas trading was outside the scope of the Bill; that is to say, restrictions which did not effect trade in this country, or even exports from or imports into this country, but which was simply trade between one third country and another third country should not be within the scope of the Bill. It is necessary to assimilate to that principle the rules which we laid down about the recommendations of trade associations. If they are not within the Bill, recommendations of trade associations dealing with these matters clearly should not be within the Bill. This is merely a tidying operation to make sure the trade associations are treated the same as anybody else.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 37, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 38 and insert:
In determining whether an agreement is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term by which the parties or any of them agree".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We are dealing here with the exclusion of British Standards Institution arrangements, which everybody agrees should be out. All that this Amendment does is to make it plain that these arrangements about British standards are out, but that, if there are other mutual restrictions which make the agreement registrable on other grounds, it will still be registrable, and that one cannot get out by linking it to the British Standards Institution arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 3, at end insert:
(12) For the purposes of this section two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person, and any reference in this section to such restrictions as are described in subsection (1) of section six of this Act shall be construed, in relation to any agreement, as not including references to restrictions of which, by virtue of any other provision of this section, account cannot be taken in determining whether the agreement is an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies, or of restrictions accepted by any term of which account cannot be so taken.

Clause 9.—(PARTICULARS TO BE FURNISHED FOR REGISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 31, leave out from first "agreement" to "and" in line 34.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 38, leave out from beginning to "that" in line 39 and insert:
Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, the duty to furnish particulars under this section in respect of an agreement which at any time is subject to registration under this Part of this Act shall not be affected by any subsequent variation or determination of the agreement; and if at any time after an agreement has become subject to registration as aforesaid".

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will be convenient to take with this Amendment the Lords Amendment to line 43.
The effect of these Amendments is to give to industry until the end of the period given for registration to determine whether it will register or will vary the agreement. Supposing that the beginning of the period of notice was 1st November, it will not be necessary in the ensuing three months to register agreements which in that period have been dropped, or to register them in the form in which they happened to be on 1st November. We have done that because it has always been our desire, and I believe that desire has been shared on all sides of the House, that wherever possible industry should drop agreements for which it has no further use.
We do not want a lot of agreements registered if they are of no particular importance or purpose. It may be that industry will wish to drop a substantial part of its arrangements or have them in

another form. We want industry to register the things which it wants to register, not the things it wanted to register at some other time, and we have, on reflection, come to the conclusion that we should have a final date to give industry an opportunity to get rid of any unwanted clauses or arrangements which it no longer feels to be necessary. What is required here is simply that by the final date, say, a three months' period from the 1st November or whatever it is, it should register the agreements which it wishes to have decided or adjudicated upon by the court, and none other.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of procedure, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was really addressing himself to the Amendment to line 38, but I understand, from the opening words of the Amendment to line 38, that there is a reference to an Amendment which, if carried, will constitute a new subsection (3). In fact, if I followed him rightly, the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was directed to the Amendment to line 43 and not to that in line 38. I mention this only as a matter of convenience, because we might have to take a different line on the Amendment to line 33 from that which we shall take on that to line 38.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: That is a very fair comment by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the Amendments raise very closely connected but quite different points. One deals with the variation of agreements, and we wanted industry to have an opportunity to vary agreements, whereas the Amendment to line 33 deals with the length of the period and the date by which these things ought to be recorded by the Registrar. It is quite possible to have different views about the two Amendments, but they are linked closely together.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It seems to me that these two Amendments are so very closely linked that it is not possible to discuss one without the other. What the President is suggesting is that, if there is some vicious agreement which ought to be registered, the parties to that agreement should be given a short locus paenitentiae in which to cancel the agreement before it is registered. I can understand the force of that suggestion


from the point of view of the Government, but I do not think the argument in favour of it will be particularly acceptable to the public, or, at any rate, to those members of the public who are anxious to understand this matter, and to try to stop restrictive practices taking place.
A great deal of what has been said during the whole course of our debates on this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and again on Third Reading, has shown that, as the President himself has admitted, a great deal of this Bill will act as in terrorem, and that a great deal of the efficacy of the Bill depends not merely on its precise substantive provisions, but also on the kind of psychological impact which it will have on traders and others. One of the main purposes of the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself has said more than once, is to try to deter people from entering into restrictive practices.
On the two Amendments which we are now discussing together, the President has put the case for the Government very persuasively. He is saying, "We will give a locus paenitentiae to improvident or objectionable traders to cure their restrictive practices agreements before the time for registration comes," and he is really saying to them that, if they will tidy up these agreements before they are registered, he will let them off.
That is not satisfactory. Over and over again in the course of the proceedings on the Bill we have pointed out how difficult it is to tie traders down and to rely merely on registration of written agreements to cure this evil. The right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary know that there may be all kinds of unwritten agreements and verbal understandings which are just as objectionable and pernicious to the public interest as written agreements.
Therefore, speaking for myself, but I hope also for my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am completely against the idea expressed in these two Amendments. The other place is trying to get us to agree to a kind of prolonged locus paenitentiae during which people who have made agreements which are, ex hypothesi, contrary to the Bill, can make variations and changes in those agreements. They can introduce unwritten devices which otherwise

would be condemned by the Bill and would be registrable. They would be able to leave things out and put them under the table, sub rosa, so to speak.
The whole sum and substance of the Amendments is not merely to encourage traders to do that, but to say that any devices which they adopt shall not be brought to light and they shall get away with them. I am against that. In the interests of good administration, these matters should be brought to light. If agreements are to be changed, I would prefer to see them registered as they are now and any variations which traders might think proper to introduce into them because of the provisions of the Bill registered also. I do not like the idea of giving industrialists and others, against whom the Bill is prima facie directed, an opportunity of tidying up their agreements within three months or six months before they become registrable.
I want everything to be registered so that we can see the changes made as the result of this desirable legislation, for which we take great credit. We all know that the Press is singing the praises of the President of the Board of Trade for having piloted through the House a Measure which was not hitherto in consonance with Conservative principles. We have done our best at all stages to improve the Bill and we take great credit for the immense improvements which have been made. The House of Lords is trying to undermine the salutary, progressive and liberal principles enshrined in the Bill. The Amendments to lines 38 and 43 are a subtle and ingenious attempt to undermine our good work in persuading the President of the Board of Trade to make substantial improvements.
I am loath to see Amendments inserted by another place to deprive this House of these excellent provisions to stop restrictive trade practices. This is a glaring example of the kind of change by which, by a very subtle strategem, the other place seeks to detract from and to diminish our good work.
In the Amendment to line 43, the President seeks to insinuate—I use the word in no offensive sense—a provision by which traders will have the opportunity for a period of time not specified, of changing the existing agreements—in fact, of determining them—and substituting other agreements which will


obviously be worded to accord with the Bill. I have no doubt that many agreements will be varied as a result of the Bill, and it is quite right that that should be so. If we are to achieve the objectives to which we are devoted on this side of the House and to which the right hon. Gentleman has given lip-service on more than one occasion, we must, in the interests of sound public administration, see what is going on over the whole of this field.
These two Amendments raise a serious matter of principle. I object to two parties having this locus paenitentiae in which to vary their agreements and attune them to the Bill and enter into all kinds of devices and stratagems like substituting verbal understandings for written agreements to circumvent the objectives embodied in the Bill. I view the Amendments with alarm and suspicion because they open the door to evasion. This is not the right way to deal with the matter. We should not encourage this sort of thing. We should insist upon agreements being registered as they stand and allow the variations also to be registered. That would be much more satisfactory. Therefore, taking the most tolerant and charitable view possible of the attitude of the President, I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope, in view of what has been said, that the House will agree that we should reject it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay: In order to explore how far the President is guilty, as my hon. Friend suspects, of a subtle and sinister strategy, may I ask him three questions? The right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his remarks—I thought a little incautiously—that he wished to ensure that any trader would have to register such agreements or arrangements as the trader wished to have adjudicated on by the court. I took the right hon. Gentleman to mean that what he is here intending is that the trader would be under an obligation to register any agreement or arrangement in force at the end of the period referred to in the Bill and that any that came into force after that period. Were that not so, I think there would be substance in what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is saying. Is the trader to be at liberty to get out of a registration because he does not wish to have it

adjudicated on? That is my first question.
Secondly, are we to understand that what my hon. Friend calls the locus paenitentiae—and what I prefer to call the tempus paenitentiae—during which these persons are allowed to desist from their practices shall be a period of three months? As I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill as it now stands which lays down that this is to be a period of three months rather than six months or three years. If I am right, we are at present in the position that the Parliamentary Secretary has informed us that the intention of the Board of Trade is that it shall be a period of three months, but, so far as the Bill goes, it could be extended to any period to which the Board of Trade chose to extend it.
Thirdly, I wonder whether the President can guide us by telling us what arrangement on this point has been in the case of Sweden? We have been told at various stages during the discussions on the Bill—I think it came up again in another place—that the process of registration in Sweden has been very successful in the in terorem sense—again to quote my hon. Friend—in scaring people out of the practices by the mere prospect of their having to register them. Did the Swedish legislation say that all practices in force at the time that the corresponding instrument there was made would have to be registered, or did it allow this period of grace, to put it into plain English, before registration during which agreements could be terminated without being registered?
We have been told that something like one-third of the agreements in force in Sweden were terminated. I do not know how we could know that if the procedure which
the President is now imposing were in force. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the successful result in that country was achieved by what he desires to do or what is asked for by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Wade: These Amendments raise a point of some substance and I have come to the conclusion that this House should approve them for reasons which I will try to indicate—although I must say at the outset that the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade tended to make me oppose them, or to be less


inclined to support him, after hearing his reasons.
For the purpose of clarification, may I ask whether I am right in assuming that we are considering what happens after agreements become subject to registration, and not after the date when the Bill comes into force? I am inclined to the view that those interested in evasion will most likely make their alterations as soon as the Bill comes into force, if they have not done so previously, rather than wait until an order for registration has been made and then make them during the period before the last date for registration. Perhaps the President could clarify that point.
We are considering whether there should be an interregnum, or however one likes to describe it, during which parties to an agreement shall have the opportunity to cancel, withdraw or amend their agreement. During the earlier debates, I expressed the view that had registration been introduced several years ago—I think it would have been the wisest course to have started with registration—it would certainly have brought some interesting information to light, and subsequent legislation could have been introduced making clear what agreements were forbidden altogether and what agreements would be permitted subject to application to a court.
That policy was not adopted and here we have a Bill which combines registration investigation and prohibition. As a result there is a real danger of causing such delay in dealing with a mass of registrations and appearances before the court that the Bill may prove ineffective. Many hon. Members have pointed out that danger. Therefore, I come down on the side of any Amendment which may help to lessen the danger of undue delay and reduce the amount of work falling on the Registrar. For that reason, I feel inclined to support the Amendment.
I hold the view that Part I of the Bill does not cover some important agreements which should be registered and the day may well come when it will be necessary to extend the application of Part I. But the chances of doing so will depend, to some extent at any rate, on the success of this new procedure of the Registrar and the court in dealing

with the vast number of agreements already covered by Part I. I am particularly anxious, therefore, that Part I should proceed as speedily as possible. Had this Bill not covered verbal agreements, I should have been very chary of approving these Amendments. But I hope it will be clearly understood in the country that verbal agreements into which traders may be tempted to enter, after having cancelled formal written agreements, will be registrable, if they come within the terms of Part I of the Bill. While I appreciate the arguments of those who object to the Amendments for the reasons which I have indicated I think that the House would be wise to give its approval to them.

Mr. George Darling: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has voiced a typcial Liberal Party approach to this problem. After putting forward all the arguments for not accepting the Amendments, we understand that he is prepared to accept them. I agree that the question with which we are here concerned is not only one of registration, but before we can deal with restrictive practices there must, of course, be this widespread registration of practices, because it is the beginning of the story.
In answer to one comment made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, I would point out that at the time when the Monopolies Commission was asked to investigate collective discrimination I suggested that a short Bill to provide for the registration of all agreements would help that work and whatever work might come later.

Mr. Wade: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) for one moment on that point. I merely observed that for, I think, the last eight years I and my colleagues have been advocating registration.

Mr. Darling: Then we are in agreement on that. We now want registration as quickly as we can get it, and what the Government are proposing in accepting these Amendments, and in asking us to accept them, is a further delay in registration.
On Second Reading, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary gave a solemn assurance that the registration of the worst


practices, that is, collective enforcement of prices and the worst forms of collective discrimination, would be registered within three months of the passing of the Bill. I think that is what he said, although I have not looked it up and am merely consulting my memory. That is my impression. Now we are told that registration is not to begin for three months after this Bill has become an Act, and there can be delay as a result of the procedure laid down in the Bill itself.
I am reading these Amendments hurriedly—we have not had much time to go into them very deeply—but there can be delay in the classes of agreements and amendments that can be registered, because it does not suggest here that all agreements shall begin to be registered within three months of the passing of the Bill. There may be further delay because of the procedure laid down in the Bill itself which allows the President of the Board of Trade to ask the House for permission to register further classes of agreements. How long that process is to go on we do not know, and from the President's explanation we got no idea of the time-table which he expects to follow. He merely threw out a vague date, like December or January, or something, for the actual beginning of the registration of agreements.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) who said that we should be far better off if, at this stage, we knew all the kinds of agreements that are now in existence for the restraint of trade and all the restrictive practices that are dealt with in the Bill. I am very suspicious, not of all trade associations, but of some trade associations, and I suspect that this breathing space will not be used by those trade associations to bring their agreements within what we would like to think are the terms of the Bill; that they will not get rid of their worst practices and carry on in a manner which would be approved by the Restrictive Practices Court.
I am confident that there are many groups of traders in the country who will use this breathing space, not so much to put themselves within the law as to find ways and means of carrying on—by verbal agreements, and by all kinds of under-cover arrangements which we will find great difficulty in bringing to the

public—as they carried on before, though they will have scrapped their formal agreements as they stand today. Traders having that intention would be prevented from carrying it out if all restrictive practices within the groups that are called upon to register were registered at once and without a breathing space.
It may be that many trade associations will alter their practices so as to bring themselves within the law. There will not be a great deal of difficulty in registering the amendments of their agreements. That will go on for a period in any case, but the benefits of immediate registration are far greater than the difficulties which will be placed upon some trade associations that want to alter their agreements so as to bring them within the law. On balance it would be far better, from the public point of view, to have immediate registration of all agreements, without any breathing space at all.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: I do not quite understand the types of evasion, to be frank and to use that word, which the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and other hon. Members have in mind. As I see it, some traders will endeavour to find ways round the law, and, in order successfully to find the way round, those practices will in any case have to be outside the wording and force of this Bill. I should not have thought that immediate registering of their agreements would alter that. The purpose of the Bill, and I am sure that this is agreed on all sides, is to eliminate restrictive trade practices which are against the public interest.
We have all, I think, had some apprehensions that that might take longer than we would wish, because the Court itself will be so full of work that, in order to get through it, an additional length of time will be necessary. I do not mind in the least who eliminates the restricted trade practice. If the trade thinks that it has an agreement which comes within the scope of the Bill, I would not take any exception to its acting in advance of the Court.
One point, however, I should like to make. I think it is correct that any agreement to be registered has to be an agreement which is in force. If that is the case—and I should like my right hon. Friend to emphasise that if he would—it


eliminates a proposed agreement, or a proposed variation being registered when the previous agreement has not been cancelled and a varied agreement is substituted for it. If that is right, then I think it gets rid of the objections raised. The previous practice will have been abandoned in favour of one which, it is thought, comes within the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to say that while I do not pretend to be an expert, I think that, on the whole, the Swedish case helps the Opposition's argument. The arrangement there is a little different. Those concerned are called up by
the Monopolies Investigation Bureau, but it appears that that takes place at their own request. The number of agreements on the Swedish register has increased. It is now over 1,200. The difference in scale will be seen. Of course, I do not know how many there will be here, but my belief is that there will be more than 1,200, so we are dealing with rather a bigger administrative problem, and I will have a word to say about that administrative problem in a moment.
It is fair to say to the right hon. Gentleman that agreements that have been varied at any time since August, 1946, may be registered, even though they have been cancelled before the parties are asked to register them. Similarly, agreements cancelled after registration remain on the register, so it does rather fit in with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That is how the calculation was made.
Detailed analysis shows that the likelihood of cancellation increases with the length of time that an agreement has been registered. Of the agreements registered in Sweden in 1948, 72 per cent. have been cancelled, and I only hope that we shall have the same experience in this country. While I concede that there is a case for registering everything as it was at a certain date, I do not think that the case can be put forward on the grounds of good administration, and it is the question of administration that is really giving me some quite considerable anxiety. We have said, and we adhere to it, that our present intention is that within three

months of the order coming into force the agreements will be registered. But there may be a great number of them.
As was announced in another place, we have been considering a possible way of dividing the load into two by taking two separate batches of industry, but I must confess that our investigations have shown considerable difficulties about dividing industry into two, on any classification, which would not lead to quite considerable confusion at the margin. It may well be that we shall have to make an order covering the whole field of industry in one go. I am not oblivious to the fact that that would place a considerable strain upon the Registrar and his staff. I am most anxious not to add to that strain in any way. It will be a big enough job to record and register the agreements which are within this Bill and which will have to be adjudicated.
While I can see that from many points of view there may be some advantage in having on the Register agreements which will not have to be adjudicated, and in seeing how they are altered, I think it is a big price to pay for that if we put upon the Registrar the burden of both the agreements which are not wanted as well as the agreements which are wanted. I do not see much point in asking the Registrar to record both the original and the variation.
In the circumstances, I feel that the right course here is to say that we will make an order, bring it before the House I suppose in the resumed session in November—we certainly cannot do it before we adjourn for the Summer Recess—and that within three months of that order, which is the period which we have in mind at present although it is not a final decision, we shall require the great range of restrictive practices dealt with in this Bill to be recorded.
During that period industry will have an opportunity to drop these practices. If industry does drop them, so much the
better, for what is the object of all this? The object of our deliberations is to have fewer restrictive practices, not more. The House ought to be happy that it should achieve that object and that we have a freer economy than we had before.
Some may be varied. But suppose they are varied; if the only restrictions which are left at the end of the day are restrictions which are so worded and


guided that they are outside this rather carefully considered Measure, it will still be a pretty free economy. I do not say that we shall have done everything, but we shall have got rid of a tremendous amount of restrictions which have been cluttering up the commercial arrangements in this country. Therefore, I am not afraid of that contingency either.
As I say, I rest my case mainly on good administration. I am really concerned to give the Registrar, who is going to have an onerous and difficult job, the best opportunity of getting his register in order and recording those things which deserve registration.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any agreement or arrangement which would by its nature be registrable and which is in force at the end of the interregnum period, or which comes into force thereafter, would be registered?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Anything which is in force at the end, or comes into force thereafter, which is within the terms of the Bill or the order, will have to be registered.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I do not think the President of the Board of Trade has replied to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), in opposing these Amendments.
The President has made the point that it is better for collective practices of an evil nature to be dropped automatically and voluntarily by the groups of manufacturers and traders concerned. We all agree. But the Amendments do not help. We on these benches maintain that a period of three months provides traders and manufacturers with an opportunity of applying in another form the same practices which we want to be made illegal. It is in order to catch this kind of practice that we think immediate registration is necessary.
The Bill seeks to make illegal all collective practices for the maintenance of retail prices, but it makes legal single practices. All that is being done is that groups of firms which have
collective agreements will have three months in

which to make arrangements to slip through the meshes of this Measure.
During our discussions we came to certain conclusions, namely, that there was operating in this country a whole network of practices which were against the interests of the consumers and of our economy as a whole. We said that these practices should be made illegal and should all be registered. Now we have our decisions amended in another place, giving to the people with whom we are dealing a period of three months in which to make new arrangements.
These Amendments are unnecessary. If this is an evil thing—and we have all agreed that it is evil for the consumers and bad for the economy—why should there be three months' notice? Why should not the Act stipulate immediate registration? If there are administrative difficulties, they can be met. The principle of immediate registration—and at least the principle of registration within a month—should be maintained by this House. That is why we oppose these Amendments which allow new methods of regrouping in order to maintain practices which we all agree are evil and bad for the economy, which exploit the consumers and which should, therefore, be eliminated.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I cannot regard the President's reply as satisfactory. Logically, of course, I appreciate the force of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant.) One can approach the Bill and say, "It provides that certain agreements shall be registered. Either there is an agreement within the Bill or there is not, and if one abandons or varies the agreement so that one is outside the Bill, one should not be registered and that is that." It is a nice clean logical answer which I immediately accept, and the force of which I appreciate. But, of course, the whole tenor of our attitude right through the Bill has been that there are too many loopholes in it. There are too many opportunities in the Bill for evading what was put forward on Second Reading as being the real purpose of it. What we find here in this Amendment introduced elsewhere and now brought before the House by the President is that a further opportunity is given, so that, after giving notice, those who practise what are


admittedly agreements within the mischief of the Act may, after due notice from the Government, alter or vary them so as to avoid registration.
5.30 p.m.
What we are particularly anxious to have is information about these agreements, and about what is happening as regards variations, and so forth. It is valuable to have the information, even though by variation or by abandonment the provisions of the Bill can be avoided. In other words, we want to know not only what would be actually caught within the four corners of the Bill as regards any particular agreement, but we want to know what the practices in industry are, so that, if need be, there might in due course be an amendment of the Bill or, perhaps, the Registrar, having such information, will have an opportunity of finding out what in fact is happening as regards restrictive practices and the evasion of the provisions of the Bill.
I, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wale), am completely unconvinced by the administrative argument. I can understand, of course, that the President may not be anxious to have the register cluttered up by agreements which are not themselves within the Bill. But what he is contemplating here is a period within which registration may take place, and he is providing for a period of three months presumably to give a spreadover so as to give an opportunity to those who adopt these practices to consider the position and go through the machinery of registering and also to give an opportunity to the Registrar himself to register without an undue pressure of

work. The President is saying that if, before the end of what he suggests would be a period of three months, an agreement is varied or abandoned, then the agreement need not be registered at all. In those circumstances, there will certainly be a tendency to defer registering until the very end of the period, because if an agreement is either abandoned or varied before the end of the period so as to come outside the Act there will then be no regisration at all.

I do not want to put that consideration too high, but I would certainly put it as high as this, that the course he is proposing in this Amendment, the argument being based upon matters of administration, is at least as questionable from the point of view of the interests of the Registrar in having a trickle of registrations instead of a rush at one particular moment, as the Clause stands without the Amendment. He is by this Amendment tending to produce a surge of registrations at the very end of the period. I am quite unconvinced by the argument on administration upon which he bases his case.

As to the rest of it, it seems to us, on the point of substance, that it is desirable to know what is being done. We have in Sweden, a precedent which certainly has been valid. We are not doing anything revolutionary which has not been tried elsewhere; we are suggesting a course which has been tried elsewhere and found effective, as the President has indicated. For those reasons, I would certainly advise my hon. Friends not to agree to this Amendment.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 180.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooper, A. E.


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bidgood, J. C.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Alport, C. J. M.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Black, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Body, R. F.
Currie, G. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess


Armstrong, C. W.
Boyle, Sir Edward
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Ashton, H.
Braine, B. R.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Drayson, G. B.


Balniel, Lord
Brooman-White, R. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Barber, Anthony
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Barlow, Sir John
Bryan, P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Barter, John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gary, Sir Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Channon, H.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cole, Norman
Fell, A.




Finlay, Graeme
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Powell, J. Enoch


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Profumo, J. D.


Fort, R.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Raikes, Sir Victor


Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.
Ramsden, J. E.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kershaw, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Freeth, D. K.
Kimball, M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Garner-Evans, E, H.
Kirk, P. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lagden, C. W.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Glover, D.
Lambton, Viscount
Rippon, A. G. F.


Godber, J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cower, H. R.
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sharples, R. C.


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Shepherd, William


Green, A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKibbin, A. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hay, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.




Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mawby, R. L.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J, K.


Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Vickers, Miss J. K,


Hornby, R. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wade, D. W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Neave, Airey
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicholis, Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hyde, Montgomery
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Osborne, C.
Woollam, John Victor


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, R. G.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)



Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wills and Colonel J. H. Harrison.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Champion, A. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Albu, A. H.
Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R,
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.


Anderson, Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Daines, P.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Balfour, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.


Beswick, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Healey, Denis


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Dye, S.
Hobson, C. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holmes, Horace


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hunter, A. E.


Burke, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.
Hlnd, H. (Accrington)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Flecher, Eric
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gibson, C. W,
Janner, B.







Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Snow, J. W.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; S. Pncs, S.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P. (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Oram, A. E.
Steele, T.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Orbach, M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Kenyon, C.
Oswald, T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Owen, W. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lawson, G. M.
Paget, R. T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Ledger, R. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
Tomney, F.


Lewis, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Paton, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Logan, D. G.
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, T. F.
Warbey, W. N.


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Weitzman, D.


McInnes, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McLeavy, Frank
Pryde, D. J.
Wheeldon, W, E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, John
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mahon, Simon
Redhead, E. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)




Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willey, Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Marquant, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Short, E. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Woof, R. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Zilliacus, K.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Simmons, C, J. (Brierley Hill)



Moss, R.
Skeffington, A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moyle, A.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer.


Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 9, line 43, at end insert:
(3) Where any agreement becomes subject to registration under this Part of this Act by virtue of an order made under section eight of this Act after the making of the agreement—

(a) if, before the expiration of the period within which, apart from this subsection, particulars would be required to be furnished in respect of the agreement under this section, and before particulars have been so furnished, the agreement is determined (whether by effluxion of time or otherwise), subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall cease to apply to that agreement;
(b) if, before the expiration of the said period and before particulars have been furnished in respect of the agreement, the agreement is varied, the particulars to be furnished under subsection (1) of this section shall be particulars of the agreement as varied, and subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to the variation."

In page 10, line 9, leave out "party" and insert "person".

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 25, at end insert:
(6) In relation to an agreement to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of subsection (6) of section six of this Act as if it were an agreement made between members of a trade association, or persons represented on the association by such members, references in this section to the parties to the agreement include references to those members or persons; and in relation to an agreement in which a term is implied by virtue of subsection (7) of the said section six, the reference in this section

to the terms of the agreement includes a reference to that term, and references in this section to an agreement shall be construed accordingly.

5.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Clause deals with the furnishing of particulars for registration. The purpose of the Amendment is to add a further subsection to it. The purpose of the first half of the Amendment is to remove a defect in the Bill as drafted by extending the provisions of the Clause to persons who, although not themselves members of a trade association operating a registrable agreement, are represented on the association by other persons. As a result of this part of the Amendment, the persons represented on the association will also be under an obligation to furnish particulars of the agreement, and consequently thereto their names will have to be included in the particulars to be registered under subsection (1, a).
The second part of the Amendment links up with the Amendments to which my right hon. Friend referred in page 6, lines 20 and 23. This part of the Amendment provides that the particulars of a


specific recommendation must be furnished to the Registrar and not simply the terms of the constitution of the association.

Clause 10.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO THE REGISTER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 29, leave out from "as" to end of line 30 and insert "the Registrar thinks fit."

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient if we take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 32. These Amendments are designed to make a minor but practical improvement in the arrangements for the actual keeping of the Register. As the Bill is drafted, the Registrar has to make regulations about the form in which the Register is to be kept—that is to say, the entering and filing of particulars of agreement—and he would be committed, in advance of experience of how best to do it, to the form which he has described in advance theoretically by his regulations.
The effect of the first Amendment is to enable the Registrar to keep the Register in the form which he finds to be most practical and appropriate. The second of the two Amendments is consequential.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 10, line 32, leave out "so prescribed" and insert:
prescribed by regulations made under section eighteen of this Act.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 21, after "Registrar" insert:
or any assistant registrar or other officer authorised to act on behalf of the Registrar.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
All that the Amendment does is to make it possible for copies or extracts from documents entered or filed in the Register to be admitted as evidence in legal proceedings if certified by an assistant registrar or any other officer authorised to act on behalf of the Registrar. As the Bill is drafted, only the Registrar himself can certify copies. No doubt, in practice this would prove to be

inconvenient as the number of copies might prove to be considerable.

Clause 14.—(POWER OF HIGH COURT TO ORDER EXAMINATION ON OATH.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 38, at end insert:
concerning the matters in respect of which the Registrar has given notice to him as aforesaid".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think it would be convenient also to consider the Lords Amendment in line 41 to leave out paragraph (a).
The Clause as drafted rather suggests that the Court itself will carry out the examination in the circumstances contemplated by subsection (2.) In practice, of course, the examination would
not be carried out by the Court, which would not be in a position in any event to do so. The examination will be carried out by the Registrar, in the sense that he will put the questions to the persons who are before the Court. The purpose of these two Lords Amendments is to make that position clear. That brings the operation of the Clause into line with the appropriate precedent in Section 167 (4) of the Companies Act.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am just wondering whether it is quite clear that examination may be done by interrogatories, despite the omission of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) as proposed. It seems to me that is the substance of the Lords Amendment, but whether it is or not I do not know, and I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would let us know.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, I think so. That, I think, will be governed by the remainder of the Clause and by the rules which the Registrar is entitled to make. I think the only practical effect of the alteration is to make it clear that the Court itself will not be examining the party. This is a clarifying Amendment, and does not, I think, make any change of substance in the way in which the examination can be carried out. It merely shows by whom it will be carried out.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply that it can be done by administering


interrogatories. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to regulations which the Registrar will make, but surely the Registrar will not make regulations which will deal with the process of examinations by the High Court? Surely, if any regulations are made about that, they will be Court regulations, will they not?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. The rules of registration are the rules made by the Registrar. The rules affecting the procedure of the Court would not be
made by the Registrar. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 18, at end insert:
(3) Where notice under section thirteen of this Act has been given to a body corporate, an order may be made under this section for the attendance and examination of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of that body corporate; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in subsection (1) of this section to matters in respect of which the Registrar has given notice to the person examined shall be construed as a reference to matters in respect of which notice was given to the body corporate; and
(b) in paragraph (e) of the last foregoing subsection, and in paragraph (d) so far as it relates to evidence, references to the person examined shall include references to the body corporate."

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which inserts a new subsection, is designed to make an improvement in the procedure for dealing with cases of default in registration. As the House is aware, Clause 14, dealing with the power to examine a witness or party before the Court, is, in a sense, a follow up of the powers given to the Registrar under Clause 13 to serve notice where he "has reasonable cause to believe" that persons or trade associations may be parties to an agreement subject to registration. Clause 13 makes provision for the serving of these notices, including, in subsection (3), provision regarding trade associations.
Clause 14 make provision for the examination on oath, and says:
In any case in which the Registrar has given notice to any person …the High Court may on the application of the Registrar order that person to attend….
Of course, a company is a person in the language of the law, and can have a notice served upon it, but it is, of course, apparent that, in addition to its traditional incapacity of a soul to be damned and a body to be kicked it has incapacity to attend a court and be examined on oath, and so this new subsection makes provision for the attendance of the requisite director, manager, secretary or officer of the body corporate to attend and be examined on behalf of the company.

Clause 15.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 14, line 24, leave out "the last foregoing section" and insert "section thirteen of this Act".

Clause 17.—(POWERS OF HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN FURNISHING PARTICULARS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 28, leave out from "an" to "and" in line 29 and insert:
application under the foregoing subsection is made against any person party to an agreement".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient to consider with this the next Lords Amendment, in line 32, leave out "such an order" and insert:
an order giving an authorisation under that subsection".
These two Amendments are designed to clarify the existing draft, and not to change its purpose.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 16, line 32, leave out "such an order" and insert:
an order giving an authorisation under that subsection".

Clause 19.—(JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 21, at end insert:
(4) Where any restrictions accepted under a term implied by virtue of subsection (7) of section six of this Act in an agreement for the constitution of a trade association are found by the Court to be contrary to the public interest, the Court may, without prejudice to its powers under the last foregoing subsection, make such order as appears to the Court to be proper for restraining the association or any person acting on its behalf from making any recommendation to which that term would apply.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House both agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House has already considered Lords Amendments to Clauses 6 and 9 dealing with recommendations made by trade associations, and this Lords Amendment is consequential thereto. Its effect is to extend the jurisdiction of the Restrictive Practices Court to cover the recommendations described in Clause 6 (7). That is to say, if the Court has found that the making of the recommendations by a trade association is against the public interest, the Court by this subsection will have power to make an order restraining the trade association from making any further recommendations dealing with the same matters.

Question put and ageed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 18, line 27, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (3) or subsection (4)".

Clause 20.—(PRESUMPTION AS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 39, after "injury" insert "(whether to persons or to premises)".

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is concerned with making a small extension to the definition in Clause 20 (1, a), the important Clause which sets out the grounds on which parties may enter a plea that their restrictive practices are not contrary to the public interest. Subsection (1, a) sets up as a possible cause of pleading
that the restriction is reasonably necessary having regard to the character of the goods

to which it applies, to protect the public against injury in connection with the consumption, installation or use of those goods;
The Amendment will extend the possible injury to premises. A danger to premises from fire, for example, would now be included as a cause of injury to the public. The extension made by this definition is not designed to make any loophole in the Clause as drafted.

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 4, leave out "The" and insert:
In this section 'purchasers', 'consumers' and 'users' include persons purchasing, consuming or using for the purpose or in course of trade or business or for public purposes; and".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is in effect a clarifying Amendment. Doubts have been expressed as to whether public authorities or national or area utilities would be covered by the description "the public". The Amendment, by adding the words, "or for public purposes" makes that clear. It also makes it clear that purchasers of intermediate goods,
such as plant and machinery, are included by using these wider terms,
consuming or using for the purpose or in the course of trade or business …".

Clause 21.—(VARIATION OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 20, line 6, after "or" insert "individuals".

Clause 22.—(RULES OF PROCEDURE AND REPRESENTATION OF REGISTRAR.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 34, leave out from "may" to "the" in line 35 and insert:
make provisions with respect to".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient if we discussed with this Amendment the next two Lords Amendments: In line 37, leave out "and", and in line 38, at end insert:
and the evidence which may be required or admitted in any such proceedings; and such rules may provide—".
The first two are drafting Amendments.
Page 20, line 34, onwards, reads in Clause 22 (2) as follows:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, rules made under this section may provide—
(a) for regulating the persons to be made respondents to any application to the Court under this Part of this Act and the place at which the Court is to sit for the purposes of any proceedings thereunder;
The term "regulating" is perhaps not a very felicitous one in that context and so
make provisions with respect to".
had been substituted. The third Amendment, in line 38, is to enable the Lord Chancellor to make rules about the evidence which may be required or admitted in any proceedings before the Court. As I think the House will appreciate, there would be data which ought to be before the Court in this sort of proceeding which would not be easily or conveniently, and certainly not cheaply, brought before the Court if they were sub-ject to the ordinary strict rules of evidence, which perhaps are not quite designed for that kind of thing.
An obvious instance of that would be statistics about international trade which might be very material in some cases. It might be desirable that such statistics should be before the court in the interests both of the parties and of the issue which the court had to decide but, according to the strict rules of evidence, such statistics could not be before the court unless the compilers of them were called to give evidence. In some cases, that might obviously be an inconvenience and unnecessary course, giving rise to costs out of proportion to the desirability or having the witnesses actually there. I suppose there might be cases with this kind of complicated statistics where it might be very difficult physically to produce the appropriate witness before the Court.
This is not a novel provision. It already exists in other sorts of proceedings which have been referred to in the course of the earlier stages of this Bill more than once. The Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, has a similar provision in Section 3 (6) and the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, under which the General Claims Tribunal operates, has such a provision in Section 9 (2.) I might add for the further reassurance of the House that the rules made by the Lord

Chancellor under this power will be exercisable by a Statutory Instrument and they will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? I listened to his explanation, but is not the effect of this Amendment merely to abolish the usual machinery of discovery and to enable the Court in these cases to get any relevant data or documentary evidence that might be required in deciding the matter in issue.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I agree with the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the purpose of this Amendment. I understand the purpose to be merely to make the method of proof easier and more convenient than it would otherwise be. However, I am a little concerned, because on the wording of the Amendment it might be possible to deal not merely with the method by which evidence is to be given, but also with the person from whom the evidence is to be obtained. However, as I understand that the purpose is entirely directed to the method of giving evidence, and not directed to the person responsible for producing it, so far from seeing any objection to the Amendment, I welcome it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I did not understand that at all, with respect to my hon. and learned Friend. It appeared to me from the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, and from the terminology of the Amendment, that it was addressed to the purpose of getting any relevant evidence or data whatsoever from any source, if the Court thought in these matters that that was necessary. I understood that in this way, it would be doing it in a quick and direct way without the formal machinery normally applied in order to get discovery, and that it was doing away with all the ordinary formalities of discovery either in regard to persons or in regard to documentary evidence or data. I understood that the Amendment was introduced because, in a matter of this kind, it is essential that all data and all necessary documentary evidence should be before the Court in coming to its decision.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Referring first to the point made by the hon. and learned


Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), he is right in his supposition as to the limitation which we seek to put upon the application of this provision. Of course, it is not so important as it would be if this were other than a rule-making power, because, of course, when the rules are made, regard will certainly be had to the purpose for which they are required.
In regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), this is an Amendment which is dealing with the question of evidence, and it is an Amendment which is, as I sought to explain, designed to facilitate the admissibility of evidence which would not otherwise be admissible under the strict rules of evidence with which the hon. and learned Member is so familiar. The subject of discovery is really dealt with in the following paragraph, subsection (2, b). That takes care of the subject of discovery in such a way that the full material will be before the Court.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 20, line 37, leave out "and".

In line 38, at end insert:
and the evidence which may be required or admitted in any such proceedings; and such rules may provide—".
Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 44, at end insert:
(c) for enabling a single application to be made to the Court in respect of a number of related agreements, or separate applications made in respect of related agreements to be heard together;".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment will add another paragraph to the rule-making power under subsection (2) of Clause 22. In effect the new paragraph will allow for rules to be made to provide for the grouping or consolidation of applications before the Court. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the practice of the courts will appreciate that consolidation of actions is provided for in the ordinary way in the High Court, and this is really following that procedure, and will save the time of the Court and enable it to look at restrictive practices in any particular industry a little more in the round.

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 12, at end insert:
or any other unreasonable conduct on his part".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This will add another provision to paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of Clause 22, and will enable rules to be made to enable the Court to make an order for the payment of costs for other unreasonable conduct in addition to that precisely specified.

Clause 23.—(PROHIBITION OF AGREEMENTS FOR COLLECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS AS TO RESALE PRICES.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 22, line 22, leave out subsection (3.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 25, at end insert:
(4) A contract for the sale of goods to which not more than two persons are party shall not be unlawful under this section by reason only of undertakings by the purchaser in relation to the goods sold and by the vendor in relation to other goods of the same description.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The previous Amendment brought us to Part II of the Bill and to Clause 23, which deals with the enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. This Clause makes it unlawful for buyers to boycott or discriminate against any dealer who infringes resale price conditions, and also makes it unlawful for suppliers to agree to supply only persons who undertake to boycott or discriminate against dealers who infringe resale price conditions.
While there is nothing in the Clause as drafted to make it unlawful for a manufacturer to require a wholesaler to cut off supplies of the manufacturer's goods from a price-cutting retailer, it is not possible for the manufacturer also to agree that he will cut off any direct supplies which he may make to the price-cutter. That is because the two suppliers, the manufacturer and the wholesaler, would then be agreeing to cut off supplies, and that would be unlawful.
We consider that that is unsatisfactory, because it is only reasonable that the wholesaler, in agreeing to cut off supplies from a price-cutting retailer, should have some assurance that the manufacturer will not move in and supply the retailer direct. So the effect of this Amendment is to correct the position as it stands by allowing a manufacturer, not only to require the wholesaler not to supply price-cutters with the goods in question, but also to agree himself not to supply the price-cutter with goods of that type.

Clause 24.—(INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEMENT BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONDITIONS AS TO RESALE PRICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 27, leave out from beginning to "breach" in line 28 and insert:
Without prejudice to any other relief which may be granted in proceedings against any person in respect of a breach or apprehended".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for convenience if we could at the same time consider the Amendment in line 30. We are here dealing with a subsection which gives power to the court to grant an injunction in proper circumstances covering all goods of the supplier and not just the goods which are the subject of the sale in breach of a resale price condition. The subsection reads:
If in any proceedings it is proved that goods sold by the plaintiff have been resold by the defendant in breach of a condition….
In other words, in order to found the case for a grant of this type of injunction there has to be a resale and not the apprehension of a resale.
Hon. and learned Gentlemen will know that there is a type of injunction called a quia timat injunction, which can be got on the basis of an apprehension that that is to happen. It has been thought that the grant of this specific type of injunction, covering all the goods, might be to exclude other remedies, and so the Amendment is designed to make it clear that the subsection does not exclude the grant of a quia timat injunction against, not the generality of goods, but the particular goods advertised or offered for resale.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 23, line 30, after "fit" insert:
upon proof that goods sold by the plaintiff have been re-sold by the defendant in breach of any such condition".

Clause 25.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 40, at end insert:
(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act referring to two or more or not more than two persons, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. It removes to the general provisions relating to the Part II of the Bill set out in Clause 25 the provision about inter-connected bodies corporate and individuals carrying on business in partnership which, in the Bill as drafted, is in Clause 23.

New Clause A.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PART II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 13, at end insert new Clause A:
This Part of this Act shall come into force on the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment provides that Part II of the Bill, dealing with the resale price maintenance side, shall come into force on the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date of the passing of the Act. This new provision, which will, as it were, defer the coming into operation of that Part of the Bill, was foreshadowed in the speech which I made at the conclusion of our former proceedings in the House on the Third Reading of the Bill. The object is to allow manufacturers who have hitherto relied upon collective methods of enforcing resale price conditions, which, whatever some hon. Gentlemen may think about them, have been perfectly legal up to date, a short period in which to adjust their contracts and conditions of sale to take account of the provisions of Part II.
We recognise that manufacturers may require a breathing space in which to adjust their arrangements and also to study the provisions of the extension of individual resale price maintenance accorded to them by the Bill. So, on the assumption that the Bill becomes law in the immediate future, because this is the final Parliamentary stage of the Measure, Part II of the Bill will, on that timetable, come into operation in November next. The rest of the Bill, with one minor qualification in relation to the Commission, will come into force straight away.
Perhaps I might add one other point which may arouse a chord of sympathy among hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. It is that the Act will come into force right at the beginning of the Long Vacation in the law, and it will make it less easy for companies concerned to get the expert advice that they ought to have in regard to the arrangements for collective enforcement which they now have in operation and to enable them to make proper arrangements to conform in every respect, in the letter and in the spirit, with the law as it will be after the coming into force of the Measure.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friends and I do not agree with the Amendment. Indeed, we think it shows how right we were in being sceptical from the very beginning of the Bill about the reality of the ban on collective resale price maintenance which the Government claim to be introducing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was necessary to enable firms to adjust their arrangements during the interregnum, which has now become "a breathing space" as we have proceeded with the Bill. We fear that all that really means is that the arrangements for collective resale price maintenance will disappear in that form and reappear in the form of individual resale price maintenance enforced by means of the next Clause and no doubt operated with the assistance and advice of trade associations and other bodies.
From the start of the Bill we have said that the ban on collective price resale maintenance was only partial, and the Parliamentary Secretary was very scornful about our arguments on the subject. The Bill prohibits collective enforcement

of resale price maintenance by collective boycott, but it enables traders at the same time to enforce their resale prices individually by means of the next Clause. We have pointed out from the beginning that it is possible for traders, individually but simultaneously, to enforce their resale prices in that fashion.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that at an early stage we asked whether it would be possible for the rules of a trade association to lay down that its members should use the next Clause for the purpose of individual resale price maintenance. We were told in return that if they did that, it would be a registrable agreement for the purposes of the Bill. That is perfectly true, but of course it would not be banned. It would perhaps be registered when called by the Board of Trade and perhaps examined by the Court, but unless and until it was declared by the Court to be contrary to the public interest that practice could continue.
6.30 p.m.
Over and above that, even if the practice of an association thereby in its rules enforcing individual resale price maintenance on its members were declared to be not in the public interest, it would still be possible, as I understand it—and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will deny this—thereafter for a trade association, without having any written rules or explicit arrangements of any kind, to advise each of its members individually how to operate the Clause which makes individual retail price maintenance enforceable. That is obviously the intention of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris)—quite reasonably from his point of view. He made clear earlier in our debates that what he wants is a situation in which, after the Bill is passed, it will be possible for each trader who was previously operating collective retail price maintenance in a group to operate it individually, with the legal enforcement of the Bill and on the advice of the trade association of which he is a member.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth will deny that that is exactly what he wants to happen, and it is one of the reasons why he was forthright in proposing an Amendment to that end in our earlier discussions of the


Bill. He was not successful in having that Amendment agreed to, but the Government have allowed themselves to be pressured by vested interests into swallowing it in another place.
There will be little advantage in the matter of resale price maintenance after the Bill is passed, in spite of all this elaborate apparatus of legislation and banning and the rest of it. The housewife and other consumers will pay exactly the same prices as they did before. Prices will be enforced equally effectively, only they will be enforced by law instead of being enforced by the threat of a collective boycott. All the individual traders who are thereby enforcing them will know perfectly well what the others are doing and that the others are acting in the same way. Each of them will be able to do so perfectly legally and to get identical advice from the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, or his corresponding colleagues in other parts of industry.
It seems to us, putting the matter briefly, that the ban is therefore shown up as largely a sham and a fraud on the public. There is very little left of the ban on collective resale price maintenance. The fact that the Government have accepted the Amendment shows that we were always right in saying that the only ban which the Bill purports to impose on industry at all, the only outright legal prohibition, is worth very little indeed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not intend to delay the House by re-entering the debate on this subject with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay.) I could not help thinking, as I heard him speaking just now, that this was about where we came in and that this was the sort of thing which he was saying in the Second Reading debate. It was in the same speech when he said that it would take a hundred years to get the Part I agreements registered and brought before the Court. As we are now to register them within three months, the margin of error in the estimations of the right hon. Gentleman will be seen to be very significant indeed—

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: If I may reach a semi-colon—and the House would be well advised to measure the margin of error in the very extravagant statements which

the right hon. Gentleman has just made about the effect of this administratively convenient and fair but not very vital Amendment by relating it to the error with which he concluded the prophecy of the timetable in the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Jay: Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to give us the exceedingly important assurance that the Board of Trade will call for registration, within three months of the passage of the Bill, of all agreements which are registrable under the Bill?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is making a confusion between the passage of the Bill and the Order. The Bill will come into force as soon as it gets the Royal Assent. Apart from the Part with which we are now dealing and a small provision in regard to the Monopolies Commission the Bill will come into operation as soon as it receives the Royal Assent. The Order about registration requires the approval of Parliament and, as my right hon. Friend has explained, will not be available until the autumn, and it is the three months from then in which we design to get the registration of these restrictive agreements.
However, that is a little wide of the matter which we are now discussing, which has nothing to do with Part I registrable agreements. We are here dealing with Part II of the Bill, the enforcement of resale price maintenance.

Mr. Jay: I said on Second Reading that it might be a hundred years before the Restrictive Practices Court pronounced on all the agreements registrable under the Bill. The hon. and learned Member says that I am confusing a hundred years with three months. Does he mean that he is now giving us an assurance that within three months of the passing of the Bill all the agreements registrable under the Bill will be called for by the Board of Trade? If not, what does he mean?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The timetable of events, if I am in order in referring to it—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is not in order, because the Amendment does not include all the


Orders and Regulations provided for in the Bill, and we should stick to the precise Lords Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With respect, Sir, your ruling was not entirely unexpected, and I felt I should not be led further astray by the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to distract attention from the weakness and extravagance of the argument which he made about Part II of the Bill. On that I will content myself with saying, as we have argued the subject over so many times, that collective enforcement is dealt with in the Bill in an effective way for the first time in the history of this country. The fact that this short period is given, out of fairness to those who have hitherto carried on what has been a perfectly legal practice, will in no way derogate from the effectiveness of the Bill, and in no way justifies one tithe of the extravagance of the language which the right hon. Gentleman used in referring to it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in any way used extravagant language. He put his finger on the essential and perhaps intentional weakness of the Bill. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that on this subject the Government are putting a shabby deal over the House. The Government have contended throughout that they are genuine about the Bill and want to do away with monopolies and want to do away with the impositions which have been put upon the public by collective agreements relating to resale price maintenance dealings and so forth.
What will happen here under the proposed Amendment—and I agree with my right hon. Friend that it seems to be quite manifest—is that instead of the purpose of this Bill being carried out at once, and agreements that it affects being registered and exposed at once, a period of no less than three months is being given in order that these people who have collective agreements referred to in the Bill may put their house in order.
I put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he really believe that all these people who have been operating under collective agreements will be foolish enough to sit down and wait until the three months allowed by the Amendment have expired and then get caught by

proceedings in the courts, when it is the simplest thing in the world to get rid of the collective agreements and to introduce individual agreements on which they will not be caught by this Bill at all? That is the gravamen of the objection to this Amendment. By one simple blow, by these three lines, there can be vitiated the whole of the rest of the provisions in the Bill.
I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how it comes about, if what I am saying about the effect of the Amendment is correct and fair, that the Government refused to accept the Amendment when it was previously before us. If my recollection is correct, the Government then made it perfectly clear that they were not prepared to accept this Amendment for the very reason which was then stated, and which I have now repealed, that it would have the effect of vitiating the whole of the rest of the provisions of the Bill. If that was right then, why is it not right now? If that was then regarded as such a defect, a stigma and a weakness in the Bill as it was previously introduced here, why is that not similarly the case now? How comes it that merely because belatedly another place has made this Amendment it becomes any more virtuous or acceptable than it was before?
Of course, the truth is that there has been passed in another place what was here rejected because it was recognised that to have this provision would be entirely wrong and would nullify the real effectiveness of the Bill. That is why I say it is a shabby proceeding on the part of the Government to invite the House to accept this Amendment now when it was emphatically refused previously.

Mr. Reader Harris: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. There was no seconder to the original Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) proposed the Amendment originally, and he could not even get a seconder. The Government would have nothing to do with it. Having been completely unable to do anything with it in this House its sponsors had the matter raised in another place where it was passed and sent here. Not only does it not now need a seconder, but the Government are prepared


to accept this Amendment holus-bolus, and the effect which it will have on the Bill. I say that that is wrong and a thoroughly shabby proceeding to inflict upon the House.
By way of justification the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with collective enforcement. Of course there are, but what is the good of them when an opportunity is given to the people who have these collective agreements to do away with them and thus render completely redundant the provisions regarding collective enforcement? As I have said, these people will not sit down and wait for three months until they are caught. They will transmute the collective agreements into individual agreements, and thereupon they will be outside the provisions of the Bill altogether; and all the work which has been done in this House, and all the pretence from the Government about the purpose and sincerity of this Bill will be nullified and go by the board.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I wish to make my own position clear on this matter. I deplore the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that we should adopt the Amendment. Unlike my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was never happy about Clause 23 (6); it seemed to me quite anomalous that, in a part of the Bill declaring what is to be unlawful, we should go out of our way to say that no criminal proceedings should be taken against anybody doing something which this Bill makes unlawful. When we were considering subsection (6) it seemed to me that there was a strong case for omitting it. Nevertheless, on that point I deferred to the view taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I mention it now only in order to emphasise the seriousness of this Amendment.
To take a reasonable analogy, in this Part of the Bill we are laying down what should be unlawful and what, but for Section 23 (6), would be a criminal offence. It seems to me illogical and inconsistent to say that people may commit a crime for the next thre months, but afterwards they must stop. That is the effect of this Amendment. People may go on breaking the law with impugnity for three months, but after that they can be punished. That is so incontrovertible that it scarcely bears

repetition, but I think that the analogy is complete.
I am sure it will be appreciated that in this whole field of anti-monopoly legislation we are in the realms of jurisprudence. We are in an indefinable and debatable area between the criminal and civil law. The only other country which has to any great extent given legislative thought to anti-trust provisions and anti-monopoly provisions is the United States of America. There the anti-trust laws partake of the nature of criminal laws—I have always thought rightly—and that is the strength of the American jurisprudence on the subject. In this Bill, in Part II, at the suggestion of the Government, we are deliberately not going to that length. We are content to make monopolistic offences offences against the civil law and not against the criminal law. We are introducing civil remedies and not criminal remedies.
That does not, however, in any way alter the nature of the momentous change in legislative arrangements which will be introduced as a result of this Bill. It seems to me, therefore, that precisely the same arguments apply. If we are proposing to make something unlawful, it should be unlawful as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is absurd to say that people may go on breaking the law for three months. That seems to be an invitation to them to defy Parliament.

Mr. R. Harris: But they will not be breaking the law.

Mr. Fletcher: It is very difficult to deal with interventions made by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. But so far as I understood him, what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) said was that they will not be breaking the law. But of course they will; they will be doing something which Parliament says will be unlawful, which this House has laid down should be unlawful, and which would have been unlawful from the moment the Bill received the Royal Assent if it were not for an Amendment introduced in another place providing expressly that people can go on defying the law of the land for three months.

This Amendment seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I find it very difficult to understand the effrontery with


which the Parliamentary Secretary, at the instance of another place, can ask this House to go back upon what it has solemnly decided should become the law of the land. He is asking us to say that what he wants to be the law of the land can be defied with impunity and without any redress at all. That is an invitation to people to break the law and do things which we do not want them to do, such as cover up agreements which should be exposed. That is a most reprehensible and reactionary step.

I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary really has very much discretion in this matter. No senior Member of the Government is present. There is no Cabinet Minister to help the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a matter which requires the most profound attention of the Government, because they are inviting the House, at the behest of another place, to go back upon what it has decided after very careful and prolonged thought and debate. I hope either that the Parliamentary Secretary will not press the Amendment or, if he does, that it will be defeated.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should like very briefly to comment upon the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels.) The only new point which they made was the suggestion that we are here giving effect to an Amendment disapproved by the House and now commended to us by another place. With great respect to both hon. Members, that is a travesty of the facts, due, I am sure, to the length of time which has elapsed since the occasion, and to the imperfections of the human memory. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) had put down an Amendment to give effect to this proposal. By some unfortunate accident the hon. Member who was going to second the Amendment was not present in the Chamber and my hon. Friend was not able to move it. Had he moved it, my right hon. Friend would certainly have been prepared to accept it in principle.
In regard to the attitude of another place, if the hon. and learned Member would be kind enough to look at col. 902 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th June he will see that I gave notice of this proposal

in this House. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that this proposal has been conceived only in another place, and that it is in any way contrary to the intention which the Government formed when the Bill was previously before the House.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Parliamentary Secretary's replies have been wholly unsatisfactory. We have had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a full and detailed explanation of the reasons why we are opposed to the Amendment. So far from having the courtesy of a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary we have had a purely debating speech upon irrelevant matters, in respect of which he was eventually brought to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the substance of our objections. In Clause 23 we have a prohibition of the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance. That practice, with its paraphernalia of secret courts and the rest, has been condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least by the President of the Board of Trade himself. Why, then, should it be allowed to continue for an extra three months? What is the object of that?
We are not here dealing with the administrative convenience of registering agreements and providing opportunities for agreements to be rescinded, thereby avoiding a cluttering up of the register. We have here a straight prohibition of a most objectionable practice, condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Yet the Government are to allow an additional three months in which this very practice is to be allowed to continue.
The other Clause in respect of which the Amendment gives three months' grace is Clause 24, which deals with the individual enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. That should come into operation at once. The agreements which are enforceable are not those which have to be made after the date of the Measure coming into operation; they can apply now to conditions which are made between the supplier and the retailer. Why should not they come into operation at once? What is the point of this omnibus Amendment applying both to collective and individual enforcement of resale price maintenance? Why should they be coupled together in the same provision


relating to the date at which they are to come into operation?
The reason is quite obvious. It is because the individual enforcement of resale price maintenance will be used for what are, in effect, collective agreements. That is the whole purpose behind the Amendment to which the Government have succumbed. It was not in the Bill originally. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government did not accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend because there was no seconder. In saying that the hon. and learned Member shows a quite staggering innocence of Front Bench influence and Parliamentary procedure, and what can be done in the House.
That is the trouble with the Bill. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we have completed the circle. This is where we came in. Our charge against the Bill during the Second Reading debate was that a great deal of it was "phoney"—simply window dressing—

and the Amendment which we are now considering certainly lends colour to that charge. We have completed the circle, which is a vicious circle, and one against which we shall vote.

Mr. Wade: I want to make a very brief observation on behalf of those, who, like myself, are uneasy about Clause 24 but, on the other hand, welcome Clause 23. We are in some difficulty. We are in no hurry to see Clause 24 brought into effect. On the other hand, we believe that Clause 23 should be brought into effect straight away. On balance I regard Clause 23 as the more important, and I think that the Government would create an unfortunate impression if they deferred the implementation of that Part of the Bill. My view, which is shared by my colleagues, is that the Amendment should not be accepted.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 178.

Division No. 274.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hay, John


Aitken, W. T.
Dance, J. C. G.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allan, R, A. (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Rt. Hon, Charles (Luton)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Armstrong, C. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John


Ashton, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L,
Hornby, R. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Balniel, Lord
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Barter, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Beamish, MaJ. Tufton
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Bennett, R. M. (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bidgood, J. C.
Fort, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Freeth, D. K.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Bishop, F. P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, C. W.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Body, R. F.
Glover, D.
Kerr, H. W.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Godber, J. B.
Kershaw, J. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kimball, M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Kirk, P. M.


Braine, B. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lambert, Hon. G.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Brooman-White, R. C
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Green, A.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bryan, P.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Leavey, J. A.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Channon, H.
Gurden, Harod
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Longden, Gilbert


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Corfield, Capt. P. V.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Crouch, R. F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McKibbin, A. J.




Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitman, I. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pott, H. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maddan, Martin
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, J. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Maude, Angus
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Mawby, R. L.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Wall, Major Patrick


Nairn, D. L. S.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Neave, Airey
Sharples, R. C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Nicholls, Harmar
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Osborne, C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard



Page, R. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy


Albu, A. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.


Anderson, Frank
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moss, R.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Healey, Denis
Oram, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Orbach, M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holman, P.
Owen, W. J.


Boyd, T, C.
Holmes, Horace
Paget, R. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holt, A. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hunter, A. E.
Parkin, B. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, T. F.


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Popplewell, E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Chapman, W. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Daines, P.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E)
Kenyon, C.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Delargy, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dye, S.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Eillis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McLeavy, Frank
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)







Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Tomney, F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Usborne, H. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Viant, S. P.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Woof, R. E.


Wade, D. W.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Warbey, W. N.
Willey, Frederick



Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27.—(FUTURE SCOPE OF REFERENCES TO MONOPOLIES COMMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 21, at end insert:
and the Commission shall not be required in pursuance of any such reference to report whether any such agreement to which the parties concerned are party operates or may be expected to operate as such against the public interest.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a clarifying Amendment. It makes it clear that the Monopolies Commission, in reporting on a reference after the commencement of the Act, may not make a public interest judgment on any agreement which comes within the scope of Part I of the Bill. This is in conformity with the principle of the avoidance of the possibility of conflict between the Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court. The substance of the matter is contained in subsection (1) of the Clause.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 34, leave out "on" and insert:
at the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the date of".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 27. The subsection gives power for the Board of Trade to make directions in particular cases about what would otherwise be the lapsing of the references to the Monopolies Commission. When the Bill was originally drafted, as the House may recall, it was to have come into operation one month after its passing, and so there was automatically a period of one month in which the Board could give the directions. Now that that month no longer exists and the important part of the Bill is to come into operation immediately on being passed, it is necessary to provide a short period in which

the Board can give any necessary directions.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 37, at beginning insert:
The power of the Board of Trade to give directions under subsection (3) of this section in respect of a reference made before the commencement of this Act shall include power to require the Commission to proceed with the reference as if it had been made after the commencement of this Act; and".

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is also concerned with the same subsection of the Clause, and it is designed to clarify the extent of the powers of the Board of Trade to vary existing references before the Monopolies Commission. The necessity for this Amendment arises because the words—
Except so far as the Board of Trade may otherwise direct".
might not have allowed the Board to alter an existing reference to the Monopolies Commission, or one requiring the Commission to report as if the reference had been made after the commencement of the Act. In fact, this power is expected to be required in only one case.

Clause 29.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXPORT AGREEMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Where, apart from subsection (9) of section seven of this Act, particulars would be required to be furnished to the Registrar under section nine of this Act in respect of any agreement or term of an agreement which relates to the supply of goods by export from the United Kingdom, the like particulars shall be furnished to the Board of Trade, and sections nine, thirteen, fifteen and sixteen of this Act shall apply accordingly as if for any reference in the said sections nine, thirteen and sixteen to the Registrar there were substituted a reference to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has various purposes, all of which are either drafting or consequential in nature. Clause 29 (1) provides that agreements which contain provisions as to exports, and which are exempt from registration under the provision of Clause 7 (9) shall be notified to the Board of Trade. The first purpose of this Amendment is a merely drafting one. We think it expresses the intention in rather clearer form. The second purpose is consequential upon an Amendment to Clause 7, as a result of which, in cases where an association makes recommendations about both home and export matters, the recommendations about exports, which do not affect the home market, need not be registered, but will have to be notified to the Board of Trade. The third purpose is to remove an unnecessary reference to Clause 8, and the fourth purpose is to supply a necessary reference to Clause 16, which was previously omitted in error.

Clause 34.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 29, line 30, leave out from first "Registrar" to end of line and insert:
has the meaning assigned by section one of this Act.

Clause 36.—(SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (2.)

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment involves a question of Privilege. If the House agrees to it, I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has the effect that the Bill shall come into force immediately on enactment, subject to the two qualifications which have been made by Amendments to Clause 25 and to Clause 27. We have, of course, just been discussing, and the House has divided upon, the deferment of the coming into operation of Part II of the Bill. As a result of the decision of the House, Part II will not now come into force until three months after the passing of the Act, and the references at present with the Monopolies Commission will not lapse until one month after the commencement of the Act.
For the rest, we do not see that there is any necessity to delay the coming into force of the Bill. Therefore, as to the rest of it, the Bill will come into force, as a result of these Amendments, immediately, although the House will have in mind that Clause 8 (1) relating to registration of agreements, and Clause 26 relating to the reconstitution of the Monopolies Commission come into force under Statutory Instruments, and are subject to Parliamentary control.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Molson.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Before the Motion is agreed, Mr. Speaker, I consider it necessary to enter a protest, both at the very large number of Amendments which we are being asked to consider at this late stage of the Session, and also at the very short time which has been put at our disposal to consider them. In fact, the Lords Amendments, as printed on the Paper constitute, in effect, a new Bill.
When this Bill left the House of Commons, it contained a certain number of Clauses and Schedules, and those Clauses and Schedules have been substantially increased whilst the Bill has been passing through the Lords. The number of Amendments which we are
being asked to consider today is in the neighbourhood of 146. It is no use the Joint Parliamentary Secretary saying, as I am sure he will, that a certain number of these Amendments are concessions to the Opposition and that a very large number are consequential, because, on Third Reading in the other place, it was stated that 33 of them are matters of substance.
What is more important is that, of these 33 matters of substance, a considerable number were neither considered, discussed nor debated in any form in this House. They are new matters, introduced in the other place, of which this House has previously not had the opportunity to consider at all, despite the fact that this Measure has been in course of passing through Parliament for some 20 months. When the Bill went to the other place it contained 24 Clauses and three Schedules. It now has 55 Clauses and nine Schedules. As I have stated, several of these have not been discussed here at all and are, in effect, new Clauses which, in themselves, would constitute a full measure for consideration.
As to the lack of time for consideration, I would point out that these Amendments

reached hon. Members only on Wednesday of last week. To go through these 30 pages of Amendments, together with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussions in the other place—which is necessary, if one is to apprehend the extremely complex drafting now confronting us—and to refer back to the large number of other Acts affected by these Amendments takes a very considerable time. Hon. Members who are interested in this Bill have had to do a great deal of homework over the weekend—helped, I may say, by the weather.
If it were not for the fact that throughout all our deliberations we have considered this Bill to be a non-party issue and have spoken as individuals, cutting across party lines completely on many matters, we would enter a far stronger protest and, instead of facilitating the passage of the Bill at this stage, would make it more difficult for the Government to proceed with it before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. But, because we, like the Government, wish to see a large number of the Clauses of this Bill on the Statute Book—to the extent that they contribute to greater road safety, which is an all-important matter—we certainly do not wish to impede the progress of this Measure and to prevent it getting the Royal Assent this week, if that is granted.
In the circumstances, however, I did wish to put it on the record that it is not fair to this House to come back like this at the end of the Session and to give a very few days' notice for consideration of new matters coming from another place. The Government, in my view, had no right to introduce new matters at the late stage of this Bill in another place, knowing full well that this House would not have a full opportunity of discussing them. We cannot have the same opportunity of discussing a new Clause when it comes to us as an Amendment from the other place, as we do when it is introduced in Committee, when we can then discuss it, as we can again on Report, and amend it if necessary. We have not had an opportunity of putting down our own Amendments to this Bill. In view of other business and other engagements, it was quite impossible for hon. Members, from the time they received the Bill on Wednesday, on Friday to give adequate consideration to the Bill so that Amendments could be put on the Order Paper.


It is significant that only one Amendment has been put down since these Amendments reached us from another place.
Having made my protest, we certainly do not oppose the Motion.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I would like to express my appreciation of the way in which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has made his protest. It is natural and right that a protest of that kind should be made. It has been made in both Houses towards the end of the Session regularly every year for very many years past, and it is of course very embarrassing to everybody when matters have to be dealt with at short notice as is the case now. I am, therefore, all the more appreciative of what the hon. Gentleman has said, that having made his protest he is not going to obstruct in any way.
I must reply by giving an explanation to him on one or two of the points that he has made. He has said that I would advance as an explanation the fact that many of these Amendments have been made in another place in response to constructive criticisms that have come from the opposite side of the House. He then went on, rather to my surprise, to give a reason why my argument would be unsound. He said that many of these Amendments were matters of substance. I fully recognise that the constructive suggestions that have been made by hon. Members opposite have in every case been matters of substance, and it was therefore inevitable that when they were incorporating Amendments in another place they should be Amendments of substance.
The hon. Gentleman also protested that a number of the Amendments had their origin in another place. It arises naturally out of two-Chamber government that the other House is in a position to make its own proposals. The Road Traffic Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, has not been regarded as a party matter at all, and everybody has tried to make logical contributions in order to improve the Bill. Where in another place they have made constructive suggestions the Government have felt that it was only right

to increase the size of the Bill in order to include their proposals.
There is one particular case, however, to which I ought to refer, and that is the rather extensive Amendment of Section 46 of the Act of 1930. It was in order to have a fuller opportunity of consulting local authorities and those concerned with this matter that we did not put forward our proposals at an earlier stage but incorporated them as an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that the Government themselves initiated a large number of these Amendments of substance? They were Government Amendments, such as the suggestion of regulations for banning cycle racing and certain of the other ones which are of a controversial nature.

Mr. Molson: There are special reasons for that Amendment which I shall hope to give to the House when we consider it.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the dilemma in which the House is placed in having to deal with a very large number of Amendments at the end of the Session as a feature of two-Chamber government. But the time seems to have arrived when we should consider a one-Chamber form of government in which we can revise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not relevant to the Question before the House.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(TESTS OF SATISFACTORY CONDITION OF VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 22, leave out from "council" to "large" in line I on page 2 and insert:
designated by the Minister for the purposes of this section, being the council of a county, of a borough, or of a".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be convenient if we also considered the Amendment in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "1947" to end of line 3.

Mr. Speaker: Very well. The second Amendment also involves a question of Privilege.

Mr. Molson: These two Amendments were inserted in another place in order to implement an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in this House. The whole idea of using the local authorities for purposes of testing originated with the Opposition, and they originally suggested county and county boroughs as the local authorities suitable for the purpose. It was represented to us that there was no essential reason why lesser local authorities should be barred, and the Association of Municipal Corporations asked for non-county boroughs not to be excluded. This Amendment meets their request.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I should like to mention one point arising from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reference to boroughs. Presumably he is referring to municipal boroughs as being the second type of borough below the county borough, which should not be excluded.
There are urban district councils in Middlesex which are larger in size and function than some municipal boroughs. Therefore, if it is the size of the authority with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned he ought to have regard to the size of the authority as distinct from its name. Originally the Bill provided for county councils and county boroughs. The hon. Gentleman has gone in the right direction by including in addition other boroughs. Surely other boroughs must be municipal boroughs. There are no other kind of boroughs except municipal boroughs, including presumably the Metropolitan boroughs in London.
As I said, the hon. Gentleman is leaving out a number of urban district councils, especially in Middlesex—there may be others, though not a great number of them—whose population, rateable value, services and functions are far greater than those of some of the boroughs which he is now proposing to include. I do not know whether it is too late to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that point now as we appear to be on the eve of passing this Bill. This is certainly a factor which ought to be borne in mind if he is concerned with delegating this responsibility to the larger local authorities, because he has, as I say,

probably unwittingly left out a number of large local authorities which happen to be urban district councils and not boroughs.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what discussion he had with the local authorities in Scotland on this matter. It appears to me that the only authorities that can operate if they are designated are a county in Scotland, or a large burgh, but not a city—and also not a small burgh. I should like to know what the position is. If these smaller local authorities in England are to operate, surely the council of a city like Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee ought to have the right to be designated.

7.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The point I wish to make arises out of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks.) It would be most desirable if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could clarify the position of boroughs, particularly of the Metropolitan boroughs. For some purposes, Metropolitan boroughs are not municipal boroughs and for some purposes they are. This is an occasion when their special position should be clarified.

Mr. Molson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that Metropolitan boroughs are included. As regards urban district councils, the line had to be drawn somewhere, and we drew it at boroughs; urban district councils are not included.

Captain Duncan: What about Scotland?

Mr. Hayman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the largest authority in Cornwall is an urban district council, the urban district council of Camborne-Redruth?

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 2, leave out from "1947" to end of line 3.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 2.—(OBLIGATORY TEST CERTIFICATES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 27, after "road" insert "at any time".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.


There are several of these Amendments, which are paving Amendments, before we come to the substantive Amendment. There is this one in line 27, and then there is an Amendment in page 3, to leave out line 30 and to insert
appropriate period before the said time".
Again in Clause 2 there are two paving Amendments in page 4, namely, in line 14, to leave out from "within" to "before" in line 16 and to insert "the appropriate period"; and in line 17, at the end to insert:
(6) In this section the expression 'appropriate period' means a period of twelve months or such shorter period as may be prescribed.
It is only when we come to page 4, line 22, that we come to the substantive Amendment, namely, in line 22, at the end to insert:
(7) Where within the appropriate period after the issue of a test certificate, but not earlier than one month before the end of that period, a further test certificate is issued as respects the same vehicle, the further certificate shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if issued at the end of the said appropriate period.
(9) For the purpose of spreading the work of issuing certificates in contemplation of the coming into operation of this section or of a change in the length of the appropriate period—

(a) the order appointing a day for the coming into operation of this section may appoint different days as respects vehicles registered as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section at different times;
(b) the regulations changing the length of the appropriate period may be made so as to come into operation on different days as respects vehicles first registered under either of the enactments mentioned in the said subsection (2) at different times."
Would it be agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should discuss all these Amendments together?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that would be a convenient course. I shall have to put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment" separately on each of them.

Mr. Molson: I am much obliged. These Amendments have two objectives. The one in subsection (8) deals with the first of these. Under Clause 2, as it stands, when test certificates become obligatory, a motorist will have to get a new one after twelve months have gone by since the last one was issued, or, if the period of twelve months is reduced, as

mentioned in the new subsection (6), after the reduced period has gone by. It will be necessary for him, therefore, to take his car to a testing station some days before the time will come when he will have to have a new test certificate. Unless the Clause is amended, his new test certificate will last for only twelve months, or for the reduced period, reckoned from the day of issue of his current certificate, and he would lose the benefit of the period when he could have driven with his old certificate which had not expired.
The new subsection (8) provides that in this sort of case, if the motorist brings his car for tests within one month before the end of the appropriate period, the new certificate may be treated for the purpose of Clause 2 as if it had been issued at the end of the appropriate period. This is something to meet the convenience of the administration and of the people concerned, to enable this testing to be spread over a period of time. The new certificate will have a duration from the time when the old certificate expired. The purpose of the Amendment is to encourage the motorist who has to obtain a test certificate on a given day to go to a testing station for the renewal of his certificate on any day within the month prior to the day on which his current certificate will cease to be valid. I hope that will commend itself to the House.
The new subsection (9) will enable the Minister to bring Clause 2 into effect on different days for vehicles of different ages. We have been pressed from the Opposition to introduce this compulsory testing as soon as it is reasonably possible so to do. We have given that assurance. Obviously, at a time when it is being introduced, it is desirable—if I may use a traffic expression—to stagger the time when the new obligation comes into operation for various vehicles. Under this new subsection the Minister can, for example, appoint the 1st July as the day after which it would be an offence for vehicles registered twenty years ago to be used on the road without a test certificate, and 1st May for vehicles registered only seventeen to twenty years earlier and so on, until all vehicles registered ten years or more earlier had been included. Similarly, if and when the Minister makes regulations reducing the appropriate period, that is to say, when we are able to test vehicles which are newer than ten


years old, he may make regulations bringing the new requirements into operation on different days for vehicles of different ages.
The real object of this is to enable the load of work at testing stations which may arise when Clause 2 is first brought into operation to be spread over a period. I believe that it will both expedite the time when we are able to bring it into operation, and it will make for the convenience of those owners of cars who are first brought under this obligation.

Mr. Ernest Davies: After the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, I now understand the series of Amendments. I defy any hon. Member on reading the Notice Paper and studying it to have understood precisely what these Amendments were aimed at. I take it that under the Clause as it will be amended the longest period for which a test certificate will be valid will be thirteen months. It appears that there will be an additional month during which it will be possible for the test certificate to be valid and enable the motorist to apply for his registration on the 1st January or whatever the date is.

Mr. Molson: No; it will, in fact, operate the other way. He will be able to have his vehicle tested before the expiry of the first twelve months, and his new certificate will be valid for twelve months from the time when the old test certificate would have ceased to be valid. It is not that he is to be allowed to delay beyond the twelve months, but he may have the test carried out before the completion of the period during which his first test certificate is valid.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In no case would the test certificate be valid when his registration after a period of twelve months came up for renewal. That is what I think it amounts to.
The only other point arises on this administrative arrangement under subsection (9), it being the intention of the Government to fix a date for the oldest vehicles first and then to stagger them, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, right down until the ten-year-old vehicles come under the test. In other words, it would be the oldest vehicles which would have the first date for a test and then, as the years were advanced, we should reach the cars which were ten years old.
I should be pleased if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could give an undertaking, or at least an indication, that the period over which it is proposed to stagger the introduction of the test will not be a long one and that it will not be used as an excuse or opportunity for extending considerably the period over which vehicles will be subject to test. I hope that only a few months at the absolute maximum would elapse between a vehicle, say, 15 years old and vehicles 10 years old being subject to the test, otherwise it might be a matter of years before cars which are only 10 years old become subject to it. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to give an indication of when it is expected that the first test will be compulsory, the House would be grateful.

Mr. Molson: I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce the tests. As regards the more limited point first raised by the hon. Member, it is difficult to say how long the period of spread-over will have to be but we would not expect that it would be more than twelve months.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 3, leave out line 30 and insert:
appropriate period before the said time".

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 9, at end insert:
(5) The Minister may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) of this section the use of vehicles in any such area as may be prescribed.

Mr. Speaker: This involves a matter of privilege. If the House agrees to it, I will cause a Special Entry to be made.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Minister by regulation to exempt from the need for a test certificate a vehicle which is used in an area where the trouble and expense of setting up testing arrangements and insisting on a test certificate would not be justified. The kind of place which we have in mind is the Islands of the Hebrides, off the west coast of Scotland. I can give an assurance that these wide powers will not be used to defeat the purpose of the Clause. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House as being practical and reasonable.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I should like to ask one question which has been worrying me a little. What would happen if there were an exempted area in, say, the North of Scotland—not the islands—and persons registered their cars in that area and then moved into a different registration area where vehicles were subject to the test? Would there be an opportunity for people to escape having their cars tested by obtaining their registration in one area and then moving to another? The Government should consider this and see whether they cannot guard against evasion of the test by this means.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman will have observed that the power is to be exercised by means of regulations. It will not be beyond the wit of the draftsman so to draft the regulations that when a vehicle moves out of North Uist, or whatever the island may be, it comes under an obligation to be tested before it is used elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 13, leave out "production of" and insert:
either—

(a) the production of such evidence as may be prescribed of the granting of an effective test certificate or (if it is so prescribed) the production of such a certificate, or
(b) the making of such a declaration as may be prescribed that the vehicle is not intended to be used during the period for which the licence is to be in force except for a purpose prescribed under subsection (4), or in an area prescribed under subsection (5), of this section.

In paragraph (a) of this subsection the expression 'effective test certificate' means, in relation 1o an application for a licence for a vehicle,".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (5) of the Clause as at present worded gives the Minister power to make regulations making it obligatory, where an application for an Excise licence for a vehicle is made, for the valid test certificate to be produced. Having regard to the present and increasing burden on the local taxation authorities responsible for the issue of Excise licences, it is essential to reduce to the minimum the amount of work which will be involved in having the licence system as a check that vehicles have passed a test within the preceding twelve months.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister is therefore most anxious that he should have as flexible a power as possible so that he could call for either the production of the actual test certificate, which is all that is provided for under the Bill as drafted, or, alternatively, the production of prescribed evidence of the granting of an effective test certificate. That might take the form of a stamp or a statement on the registration book or—this is, perhaps, the more likely—the inclusion in the form of application for an Excise licence of a statement that an effective test certificate has been obtained. Necessary details of it would be given to enable the accuracy of the statement to be checked.
Moreover, there will be cases under the regulations made under subsection (4) or under the new subsection (5) where classes of vehicles within the larger classes liable as a whole will not be required to be submitted for tests. In such cases, the Amendment will enable the task of the local taxation authorities to be made easier by allowing the Minister to require the owner of a vehicle to make a declaration that the vehicle is intended to be used only for an exempted purpose under subsection (4) or in an exempted area under the new subsection (5) to which we have just been referring.
The purpose of the Amendment is clearly to introduce a certain flexibility into the actual procedure in order again to reduce to a minimum the necessary complexity and difficulty of introducing the compulsory testing system.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 4, line 14, leave out from "within" to "before" in line 16 and insert "the appropriate period".

In line 17, at end insert:
(6) In this section the expression 'appropriate period' means a period of twelve months or such shorter period as may be prescribed.

In line 22, at end insert:
(7) Where within the appropriate period after the issue of a test certificate, but not earlier than one month before the end of that period, a further test certificate is issued as respects the same vehicle, the further certificate shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if issued at the end of the said appropriate period.
(9) For the purpose of spreading the work of issuing certificates in contemplation of the coming into operation of this section or of


a change in the length of the appropriate period—

a) the order appointing a day for the coming into operation of this section may appoint different days as respects vehicles registered as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section at different times;
(b) the regulations changing the length of the appropriate period may be made so as to come into operation on different days as respects vehicles first registered under either of the enactments mentioned in the said subsection (2) at different times."

Clause 3.—(TESTING OF CONDITION OF VEHICLES ON ROADS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, at end insert:
and
(b) where in the opinion of a police constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, he may require the test to be carried out forthwith.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
When we previously considered Clause 3, the provisions whereby a motorist could defer the test upon his vehicle were severely criticised in several parts of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport gave an undertaking that he would seek a way to prevent a motorist having the option of a deferment,
in the special case, where the examiner is satisfied that the car is a danger on the highway and ought not to be allowed to proceed except for a limited distance…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1956; Vol. 553, c 532.]
In consequence of this Amendment there will now be two situations in which a motorist cannot insist upon getting a deferment of his spot check. One, which is already in the Clause, is where it appears to a police officer that because of an accident having occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on the road, the test should be carried out at once. The second is this new provision, that
where in the opinion of a police constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out…
it may be ordered forthwith.
The power to decide that the case is one which calls for immediate examination is vested in a police constable, because it is thought that the ordinary

motorist will more readily accept such a decision from a uniformed officer; and the police are prepared to accept this responsibility. It is open to the police constable to consult a Ministry examiner about the technical work involved if he wishes to do so. Spot checks are normally carried out by teams of police and Ministry examiners.
I hope that this Lords Amendment goes some way to meet the undertaking given by the Government.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We are grateful to the Government for having gone some way to meet the objection which was raised mainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss.) He suggested that it was unreasonable, even foolish, that, a car having been stopped for a spot check, the driver should then be able to say, "I do not want to have my car tested now. I will drive it away and have it tested in a few weeks' time, by arrangement." Obviously, he would have the car put in order, and so escape the penalty for driving it in an unfit condition on the highway—that is, if it was in an unfit condition. It was suggested on this side of the House that deferment should be the exception rather than the rule.
As the matter now stands, anybody will be able to ask for a deferment of test unless the car is obviously in an unroadworthy condition. I think that that is allowing a little too much freedom to car drivers. We should prefer the Clause to provide that if a driver has what the police officer considers a valid reason for proceeding on his way, he may allow him to go, subject to the car not being in an obviously unroadworthy condition. We should prefer that to an automatic granting of permission to proceed unless the car is obviously in an unroadworthy condition.
As the Joint Under-Secretary of State is aware, it is not easy to detect that a car is in an unroadworthy condition. Sometimes it is obvious that the steering, for instance, is defective; but a car may be in an unfit condition, and that may not be at all obvious. As it is, it will be possible for cars not in a roadworthy condition, and which could attract penalties for being in an unfit condition, to be driven away upon request for deferment of testing, even after they have


been stopped for a spot check. Therefore, although this Lords Amendment goes some way to meet the objections which the Opposition raised, it does not go the whole way. We should have preferred deferment to have been the exception rather than the rule.

Captain Duncan: I wish to raise again the Scottish difficulty. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said a little while ago that it was unreasonable in some areas to have obligatory tests, and so power was given to exempt such areas from the obligation of tests. Suppose that in such an area a police constable is of the opinion that a vehicle is so defective it must have a test immediately. What happens? It is an area where there is no test. The last time I raised the question I failed to get an answer from my hon. Friend. If he does not know the answer to the question, perhaps the Lord Advocate, whom I see on the Treasury Bench, will answer it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: He does not know either.

Clause 4.—(SPEED LIMIT IN BUILT-UP AREAS TO BE PERMANENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 23, at end insert:
(2) A length of trunk road or of classified road shall not be deemed for the purposes of the Act of 1934 to be a road in a built-up area by reason only of the system of street lighting provided thereon if no relevant system of street lighting was provided thereon before the coming into operation of this subsection.
(3) As respects any length of road in a built-up area to which this subsection applies, subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1934 shall have effect with the substitution for the limit of speed to be observed under that section of a limit of speed of forty miles per hour.
(4) The last foregoing subsection shall apply to any length of road to which it is applied by a direction given by the authority having power to give as respects that length of road a direction that it shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area, but the giving, revocation or variation thereof shall be subject to the like provisions as the giving, revocation or variation by that authority of such a direction as is last mentioned.
(5) The provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not take effect until an order by statutory instrument appointing a day for such subsections to come into operation has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament:

Provided that no such order shall be made before the Minister has reported to each House of Parliament the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee on the results of the experimental introduction of a forty miles per hour speed limit in the London Traffic Area.
(6) Subsection (3) of section one of the Act of 1934 (which gives power, by order approved by Parliament, to increase or reduce the general speed limit in built-up areas) shall apply in relation to subsection (3) of this section, and in subsection (7) of the said section one (which relates to traffic signs), in paragraph (a), for the words from 'the places' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words 'whether a length of road is or is not deemed to be a road in a built-up area and what limit of speed is to be observed where a length of road is deemed to be such a road; and'.
(7) Where no relevant system of street lighting is provided on any length of road but that length of road is deemed to be a road in a built-up area, a person shall not be convicted of an offence under section ten of the Act of 1930 committed on that length of road in contravention of section one of the Act of 1934 unless the fact that it is deemed to be such a road is indicated by means of such traffic signs as are mentioned in the said subsection (7.)
(8) In any proceedings for an offence under section ten of the Act of 1930 committed in contravention of section one of the Act of 1934, being proceedings relating to driving on a length of road provided with a relevant system of street fighting, evidence of the absence of derestriction signs shall be evidence of the length of road being deemed to be a road in a built-up area.
(9) In any proceedings for an offence under the said section ten committed in contravention of the said section one—

(a) a certificate of an officer of the highway authority for any road stating whether a relevant system of street lighting was provided on any length of that road before the coming into operation of subsection (2) of this section; and
(b) a certificate of an officer of the Minister, or, in Scotland, of the Secretary of State that any road is or is not a trunk road or a classified road,

shall be evidence of the facts certified; and a document purporting to be such a certificate and to be signed by such an officer as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall be deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is shown.
(10) In this section the expression 'classified road' means a road classified by the Minister or the Secretary of State under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, in Class I or Class II or in any class declared by him to be not inferior to those classes, the expression 'derestriction sign' means a traffic sign displayed in pursuance of subsection (7) of section one of the Act of 1934 to indicate that the length of road is to be deemed not to be in a built-up area, and the expression 'relevant system of street


lighting' means a system of street lighting furnished by lamps placed two hundred yards or less apart.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment appears to be rather long and complicated, and I think, therefore, that I should give the House a rather fuller explanation of it than I have thought necessary in respect of some of the other Lords Amendments. I think I can help hon. Members by pointing out that much of this Lords Amendment has already been
passed by this House. Hon. Members may not, therefore, wish to trouble themselves with what they have already considered and approved. The only reason why these subsections appear in this Lords Amendment is that they are being moved into Clause 4 out of the old Clause 36, which we are deleting. This is purely a matter of drafting. As the House is aware, we are hoping in the near future to consolidate all the Road Traffic Acts, because at present it really is almost impossible to find one's way about them. We thought it would be much more convenient if all the matters dealing with speed limits were included in a single Clause, Clause 4, instead of some of them being in Clause 4 and some of them in Clause 46.
The new subsections which appear in this Lords Amendment are subsections (3), (4), and (5), with a proviso attached thereto, and part of subsection (6.) They provide that in cases where the appropriate authority so directs—that is, the Minister or the highway authority—the speed restriction in a built-up area on a specified length of road may be 40 m.p.h. instead of 30 m.p.h. In effect, therefore, the Amendment means that the Minister, in respect of a road in a built-up area, instead of entirely derestricting it, may, if he wishes to do so, subject it to a 40 m.p.h. limit.
As a result of the proviso to subsection (5), which was inserted, as I have mentioned, in another place, the Minister may not make a special order in respect of a classified road outside the London traffic area until the Departmental Committee on Road Safety has considered the experience gained in London, and has made a report to the Minister, and the Minister has passed on that report to both Houses of Parliament. Then it will be

necessary for an affirmative Resolution to be passed by both Houses.
As we really had no opportunity in this House of considering this matter of the 40 m.p.h. speed limit the House may be inclined to feel that it is desirable that we should progress slowly in this matter. My right hon. Friend announced to the House, in an Answer to a Question, that by a majority the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee had reported in favour of the introduction of a 40 m.p.h. limit, but it may be agreeable to this House that an experiment should be tried in London and on trunk roads elsewhere and that Parliament should have an opportunity of debating the matter on an affirmative Resolution.
8.0 p.m.
Perhaps I may summarise what the position will be. Frankly, it is not apparent from the wording of this Lords Amendment. Under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Minister will be able to introduce a 40 m.p.h. limit on trunk roads. Under the London Traffic Act, 1924, he will be able to introduce it into the London traffic area. It is therefore on classified roads outside the London traffic area that subsection (5) and the proviso thereto of the Amendment apply.
The position, therefore, is that under these other provisions of the law experiments can be tried with a 40 m.p.h. limit but it is only subject to these special precautions that the 40 m.p.h. limit can be introduced on classified roads outside the London traffic area by this amendment of the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I hope that the House will not agree to accept the Amendment. It seems to me that the present position is crystal clear. We know that there are certain built-up areas with a 30 m.p.h. limit and certain derestricted areas at present. These are perfectly plain and everybody throughout the country understands them. There is nothing more confusing than the introduction of a third category. When one travels through Markyate there is a 15 m.p.h. limit. In America, from State to State there are limits of 15, 20, 25 and 30 m.p.h. and confusion becomes worse confounded.
We have restricted traffic far too much. Many places which ought to be by-passed are still restricted areas. There ought to be more derestricted areas. To create a third class of 40 m.p.h. areas will get us into all kinds of difficulties. I shall not spend as much time in opposing the Amendment as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has taken in supporting it. After the long time we have spent in Committee and in the House discussing this matter, what is dimly apparent to the right hon. Gentleman is blazing daylight to the rest of us. We are against the Amendment for the reasons that I have stated, and I hope that the House will not agree with it.

Mr. Graham Page: Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I think that it is a very good thing to try these variable speed limits, but I should like some further explanation from my right hon. Friend of the proposed new subsections (3), (4) and (5.) If the 40 m.p.h. limit is to be applied to any of these roads, do the present provisions for public inquiries apply? There are three different types of roads—the trunk roads, the London roads and the provincial classified road. Would there be a public inquiry in the case of the provincial classified roads if there were a difference of opinion between the Minister and the local authority on whether the 40 m.p.h. limit should be imposed?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I have some doubts about the wisdom of this experiment with the 40 m.p.h. limit. I am glad that it was on the initiative of the Opposition in another place that it was decided to postpone the introduction of the 40 m.p.h. limit on classified roads until we have had some experience of the experiment in the London traffic area.
I suggest that the House will not be satisfied with having to debate an affirmative Order. Once that Order comes to the House the decision has been made. If we are to have a report on the 40 m.p.h. limit in the London traffic area it will be far better if the House is able to debate that report and express it views on the 40 m.p.h. limit before it is presented with a Statutory Instrument, which the Government will presumably back with the full force of their supporters by

imposing a Whip. Throughout our debate on the Bill, non-party views have been expressed freely on both sides of the House and compromises have been reached on certain issues. It would be inconsistent if the 40 m.p.h. limit were not subject to a free discussion and a free vote in the House before we were presented with an affirmative Order which in effect would be a fait accompli.
What are the Government's intentions regarding trunk roads and the London traffic area? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Minister already has power to vary the speed limit, as between restriction and derestriction, between 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. It would be helpful if we knew what the Minister has in mind. No indication has been given as to whether it is his intention to impose a 40 m.p.h. limit on trunk roads which are not restricted, or to raise the 30 m.p.h. limit to 40 m.p.h. on other sections of trunk roads. If it is the Minister's intention to proceed with the experiment in London I urge those responsible for making these decisions not to provide that roads will have a 30 m.p.h. limit, then a 40 m.p.h. limit, then restriction and derestriction.
I have in mind the Great Cambridge Road through Edmonton to the Hartford-shire border. At present there is a restriction and a derestriction. Now it is proposed to make 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. speed limits. In other words, a motorist will be restricted to 30 m.p.h. for a couple of miles, then to 40 m.p.h. for a further couple of miles and finally to 30 m.p.h. It would be far better to have a consistent limit of 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. for the whole six miles rather than have these varying speeds. On our congested roads today the motorist's attention should be on the road and not on the speedometer. If varying speed limits are imposed it will be difficult for the motorist to know exactly in what area he is travelling at a given moment.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman also to give attention to the road signs where speed limits are imposed. On many roads there are not sufficient signs to indicate where the road is restricted and derestricted. In many cases there is no more than a 30 m.p.h. sign at the entrance to a restricted area. Similarly, I hope that if there is a variation between 30


m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. it will be clearly marked so that motorists will know where they are.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 5.—(ROAD-SAFETY INFORMATION AND ROAD TRAINING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 24, after "Minister" insert:
or, in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State or the Minister.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is one of a number of Amendments which the House will find at later stages in the Bill. In the immediate foreground there are the Amendments in line 32, and in Clause 6, page 6, line 19. The Amendments are designed to secure that references throughout the Bill to the Minister should include, where Scottish interests are concerned, references either to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to both the Minister and the Secretary of State.
I might shortly explain why it is that the Amendments only now appear on the Order Paper. The Bill was introduced in June, 1955, and since that date the Transfer of Functions Order, 1955, has been made. That Order, as the House knows, transfers certain functions in regard to roads, bridges and ferries from the Minister to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would have been possible, of course, at various stages to have inserted the relevant Scottish applications piecemeal, but I think that it is for the convenience of the House and in accordance with standard practice that Amendments of this kind should be taken en bloc towards the end of the day in case further Amendments should be brought in.

Captain Duncan: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for rising and explaining the reasons for the Amendment which he is asking us to agree with the Lords about. There is one point on subsection (3) about which I am not clear in taking all these three Amendments together. I can understand the first two subsections, but subsection (3) does not appear to be the appropriate one. I wonder why? Are

there special arrangements in England between the Ministry of Transport and the English local authorities which do not apply to the Scottish local authorities? As
the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said earlier, we have not had much chance to look at these voluminous Amendments, and coming to the matter in this way we are rather groping to find the truth rather than to criticise it. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Lord Advocate will answer my question.

The Lord Advocate: Had I been able to do so, I should like very much to answer my hon. and gallant Friend in detail. However, I can assure him that whereas he possibly has not had as much opportunity as he would have liked to study these Amendments in detail, they have been under a Scottish microscope. I can assure him that we are satisfied that there is no reason why any further Amendment should be made.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 5, line 32, after "Minister" insert:
or in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State or the Minister".—[Special Entry.]
Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 39, after second "county" insert "or metropolitan".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It was as a result of representations made from the other side of the House that we included a provision that in cases where a minor local authority was organising satisfactory road safety arrangements, it should be excluded from the obligation to contribute towards the cost in the case of the county council. On Report the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and one or two other hon. Members, urged that an exception should be made in the case of the London County Council. I then undertook to look at the matter again.
We have gone into it, and the attitude of the Metropolitan Boroughs has changed. Their original view was that an exception should not be made in the case of the London County Council, but they are now agreeable to that being


done. Therefore, it appeared to us that, on balance, it was better to exclude the L.C.C. from the operation of a principle which elsewhere we believe to be equitable and fair. It is to give effect to that change in our intentions that this Amendment has been included in another place.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 6.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 59 (1) OF ACT OF 1930.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 19, after "Minister" insert "or the Secretary of State".

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 23, at end insert:
words 'a road' there shall be inserted the words 'in contravention of any statutory prohibition or restriction or' and after the".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an important Amendment which was moved elsewhere. The House will remember that it was originally included in this Bill that there should be a power to tow away motor cars or other vehicles which were causing obstruction, or, in the original form, were likely to cause an obstruction.
8.15 p.m.
The general principles of that secured general support in a debate on London traffic which has taken place since this Bill was introduced, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) spoke strongly in support of this principle. It was as a result of the initiative of the Opposition in another place that an Amendment was there accepted to widen the powers of towing away vehicles.
As the House will see, it is now to include vehicles which are not actually causing an obstruction but which are at rest on a road in contravention of any statutory prohibition. If this Amendment is accepted by the House, the actual wording of Section 59 (1, c) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, will be:
…for makng provision for the removal from roads, and safe custody …of vehicles which have broken down or which have been permitted to remain at rest on a road in contravention of any statutory prohibition or restriction or in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be

likely to cause danger to other persons using the road or as to cause obstruction to such persons or as to appear to have been abandoned, and of the loads carried thereby.
This considerably widens the powers which are given. I believe it is generally in line with the views of all those in this House who are concerned about London traffic and, if the House agrees to it, the Government will be disposed to make full use of these powers in order to deal with the ever-increasing congestion and trouble in London.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am grateful for the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, because again it is difficult, in the short time at our disposal, fully to understand these Amendments in the way they are presented to us. I am also grateful that the Government took up the suggestion which was made from this side of the House in this connection. An ever-increasing number of cars are abandoned on the streets of London. Most of us in our own residential areas have experience of cars which have obviously been left by their owners with no intention of taking them away, old cars which they leave on the highways and in respect of which, at present, although the police may have certain powers of removal, they do not appear to use them. If, in any way, this Amendment assists in removing such cars, it will be all to the good.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how these powers will be used in connection with parking in London. At present, the police have no powers to issue a summons to the person unless they see him on the spot when he comes back to his car, and they certainly have no powers to tow the car away. Does this Amendment mean that it is the intention of the Government that in future, if a driver breaks one of the parking laws and leaves his car for a certain length of time, and the police are unable to find him, the police will be able to tow the car away? If they do that, will the driver have to redeem his car and pay the cost of the towage, or what will be the position? As I understand it, in the United States there are certain zones called "tow away zones", and if a car is left in those zones it is removed to a pound as it were, and there a considerable sum has to be paid by the owner to redeem his car.
Is it proposed that some such system shall operate here? If it is to become the custom of the police to tow away our cars if we exceed the permitted parking time, where parking meters operate or elsewhere, we should be given ample warning and there should be signs to indicate that we are liable to have our cars towed away if we contravene the law.
Very wide powers are being given to the police. I think it is desirable that the police should have them, but it would be helpful if we knew to what extent it is proposed that the powers should be used.

Mr. Molson: We made a promise in Committee that the power would not be used in a vindictive manner. That promise stands. At that time, however, the powers contained in the Clause were strictly limited to cases where it could be shown that obstruction was taking place. As a result of the Amendment, the powers are extended to cases where there is a breach of a statutory prohibition.
The powers will be used reasonably. I stand entirely by the promise that vehicles shall not be towed away and left in some remote place where there will be difficulty in finding them. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there are cases where, if no-waiting restrictions are to be enforced, it is necessary for action to be taken and for cars which are left in flagrant violation of the no-waiting restrictions to be towed away. I believe that is the wish of both Houses.
I cannot say exactly how the power will be applied. I can only say that it will be applied reasonably, but I think that in some cases it will also be applied resolutely. If it is the only way in which it is possible to clear a road where vehicles are in breach of no-waiting restrictions in a line, as is so often the case at present, the police will avail themselves of these powers to tow them away or have them towed away.
Under these proposals, the person whose car is towed away will have to pay the reasonably incurred charges which are involved in doing so. It is extremely probable that certain garages will be employed by the Metropolitan Police for the purpose of removing them, and the reasonable charge incurred in removing them will be payable by the owner of the car.

New Clause A.—(CONTROL OF USE OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS FOR MOTOR-VEHICLE TRIALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 33, at end insert:
A.—(1) No person shall promote or take part in a trial of any description between motor vehicles on a footpath or bridleway unless the holding of the trial has been authorised under this section by the local authority.
(2) A local authority shall not give an authorisation under this section unless satisfied that consent in writing to the use of any length of footpath or bridleway for the purposes of the trial has been given by the owner and by the occupier of the land over which that length of footpath or bridleway runs, and any such authorisation may be given subject to compliance with such conditions as the authority think fit.
(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section, or fails to comply with any conditions subject to which an authorisation under this section has been granted, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(4) No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways, or any specified footpath or bridleway, shall affect the holding of any trial authorised under this section; but this section shall not prejudice any right or remedy of a person as having an interest in any land.
(5) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of a county or county borough, or in Scotland a county council or town council:
Provided that in relation to a footpath or bridleway in England or Wales for which the council of a borough, not being a county borough, or of an urban district is the highway authority, the said expression means that council.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new Clause is the revised version of a similar Clause moved by the Government but withdrawn during the Committee stage in another place. The first Government Clause was moved as a result of the undertaking given to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) during the debate on a Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman during the Report stage. The present version of the Clause was agreed after discussion before the Report stage in another place with the right hon. Gentleman, my noble Friend Lord Conesford and the local authorities associations.
The purpose is to control the use of footpaths and bridleways for motor vehicle trials. It is not the Government's


intention to prohibit such trials. We believe that in many ways it is better for them to be conducted in country districts rather than that something of the same kind should be conducted in places less appropriate and where the danger would be greater. Because we do not wish to prohibit them entirely, we have been unable entirely to satisfy some of the amenity societies which take the view that footpaths and bridlepaths are intended for pedestrians and horsemen only and that it is wrong for any motor vehicles to be allowed upon them. The local authorities support the Government in the view that that is going too far. Therefore, I hope that the compromise which has been reached will prove acceptable to this House, as it did to another place.
The form of control which is provided for is as follows. First, it will be an offence, punishable with a fine up to £50, to promote or take part in a trial of any description between motor vehicles on a footpath or bridleway unless the trial has been authorised by the local authority, which for this purpose will be the appropriate highway authority, where the footpath or bridleway is in England and Wales, and in other cases the county or county borough council, or in Scotland the county or town council.
Secondly, before giving authorisation, the local authority will have to be satisfied that both the owner and the occupier of the land over which the footpath or bridleway runs have given their consent in writing to the holding of the trial.
Thirdly, the authorisation may be given subject to such conditions as the local authority thinks fit.
That is the best compromise that we have been able to reach. I hope it will be regarded as reasonably reconciling the interests of those hikers who do not wish to be unduly troubled by motor vehicles when they are walking on footpaths and bridlepaths and at the same time will not entirely exclude motor cyclists from using them in suitable circumstances.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We must welcome the Amendment even though, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has explained, it does not go quite as far as many amenity societies have suggested. Nevertheless, it constitutes a very real improvement on

the position as it has been until now. The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said that this matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) as well on Report by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). There were several discussions about it before this version of the Clause was finally reached.
Some problems still remain. I hope that it will be possible to suggest to local authorities that when they consider applications of this sort they will keep clearly in mind the desirability of doing all they can to avoid major offence to walkers and ordinary users of these paths and tracks on our moors and elsewhere. As has been proved in recent months, in some areas it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a place where people can get any sort of peace and quiet and avoid the smell and noise and, to some extent, the physical danger which motor cycle trials present.
I hope that local authorities will pay attention to the actual destruction of land which takes place when trials are held too frequently in a particular area. I very much hope that not only those authorities whom we know to be interested in the matter, but all local authorities will give careful consideration to this subject. I happen to be President of the Ramblers' Association, and I have been asked by some of the amenity bodies to ask what the legal position would be about damages and so on if a walker were injured on one of the paths by anybody taking part in a trial. I assume that the position would be the same as on a normal highway. It would be very valuable, after the Bill is passed, when the Ministry is sending out general advice and guidance to local authorities—as no doubt it may—if it took the opportunity of bringing this Clause to the attention of local authorities and bore in mind my remarks.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Medlicott: I should like to add a word of thanks to the Minister for this welcome new Clause. In Committee upstairs I moved a Clause rather on these lines. Although, if I remember rightly, it was somewhat more modest, at that time the Minister could not see his way to accepting it. We are grateful to him for the great attention and consideration which he has shown in


the many consultations on this subject. The Clause goes as far as our original intentions and in one respect, goes further. Our original proposition was that, in addition to the consent of the local authority, there must also be the consent of either the owner or the occupier, whereas under the new Clause there must be the consent of not only local authority, but the owner and the occupier. That may present difficulties in practice, but no doubt that has been carefully considered.
I presented my Clause at the instance of the County Councils' Association, which will no doubt feel that the Minister has done a great deal to meet it and the wishes of those who want to enjoy the quiet of the countryside and those who want to engage in an exciting and valuable sport. I am very glad that the Minister has made it clear that for the purposes of the Clause the definition of local authorities includes the county councils themselves who in many parts of the country are likely to be considerably interested.

Mr. George Isaacs: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to people being injured on one of these paths. What is the position of someone who is injured on one of these paths after a trial has taken place and when the surface of the path has been cut up and left in a bad state and by reason of which that person slips or twists an ankle or falls or is otherwise injured? Who will be responsible for compensation? If such an accident occurs on a highway because a local authority neglects to keep its paving in good order, the local authority is responsible.

Mr. Molson: Non-feasance.

Mr. Isaacs: Do we get non-feasance in this case? I am not sufficiently informed on these legal matters to know what happens if a rambler on a bridle path which has been used for motor cycling is injured because of the state of the path after the motor cycling. Will such a person be deprived of compensation because of one of the Latin phrases which lawyers are so fond of using?
My second question is more technical. In subsection (4) it states:
No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting (be use of footpaths or bridleways,

or any specified footpath or bridleway, shall affect the holding of any trial….
Does that mean that if there is a statutory provision on a certain piece of land which prohibits it from being used except for the purpose of riding or walking, the local authority, the owner and the occupier can deprive the public of their statutory right of access over that place simply by making this provision? I agree it is right that there should be opportunities for competitions of this kind, but I wish to know what the statutory provision means and what right of compensation exists for a person who may be injured in any way.

Mr. Page: A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) regarding insurance. Motor cycles may be taken on to these footpaths and bridleways without any necessity for third party insurance, as the footpath or bridleway would not be part of the public highway. I hope that when a local authority gives permission for these trials, it will make it a condition that a cyclist engaged in the trials has a third party insurance.
In this new Clause, the word "footpath" is used. As I understand it, the intention of the Clause will apply only to country footpaths and bridleways. If a local authority gives permission for a trial on one of these country paths, the statutory provisions relating to the use of that path are waived. But the word "footpath" surely includes a footpath which is part of the highway. In fact, there is another proposed new Clause in which it states:
In this section the expression 'public highway' does not include a footpath or bridleway.
That would seem to imply that "footpath" includes that part of the highway which we usually call the pavement. In the Interpretation Clause it states:
'footpath' means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only.
It does not include that path which is part of the public highway. It seems that if permission is given under the Clause we are now discussing, these motorcycle trials could be carried out on the ordinary pavements of the public highway and that raises serious difficulties. I should protest strongly at any local council giving authority for trials to be carried out on that area of the public highway which is now reserved for pedestrians.

Mr. Molson: With the permission of the House, I will try to answer the questions which have been put to me.
The right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) expressed the view that if a highway authority allowed the road or pavement to fall into disrepair and someone injured himself the authority would be liable. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. That is the doctrine of nonfeasance. Because a highway authority neglects to keep a highway in repair, it does not become liable for any injury sustained as a result of the bad state of the highway. It would be otherwise if the authority had put something there, such as a manhole or something of that kind and the collapse of the manhole cover had caused the injury.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: That is mis-feasance.

Mr. Molson: As the hon. and learned Member reminds me, that is mis-feasance as opposed to non-feasance. Broadly speaking, that covers the first point raised by the right hon. Member for Southwark.
Secondly, he asked exactly what was
meant by saying that it would override a statutory provision. That is intended to deal with a case where a local authority has put up a notice saying, "Cycling Prohibited." If a special permission were given for cycling upon a certain day and subject to certain conditions, that permission would override the general prohibition. As regards insurance, I have no doubt that it would be possible for a local authority to make it a condition that motorcycles should all be insured. In general, I hardly see how motorcycles could get to these places without travelling along the highway.

Mr. Page: They are often taken there by lorry.

Mr. Molson: I see.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that if anyone rode a bicycle upon a footpath abutting the highway he would not have to have third party insurance because he would not be riding upon the highway. That comes as a surprise to me. It is quite obvious that anyone riding a bicycle upon a highway and accidentally or in some way getting on to the footpath and injuring somebody would be liable.

Mr. Molson: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) for the help he has given me. I have no doubt that he is quite right. As regards the pavement, I am advised that in this case a footpath does not include a pavement, so that even if the hon. and learned Member were not right the question would not arise.
Those are the best answers I can give to the points put to me. Broadly speaking, a provision of this kind in no way affects the general law of the land; it deals only with the special provision as it operates in regard to these trials over footpaths and bridleways.

New Clause B.—(REGULATION OF CYCLE RACING ON HIGHWAYS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 33, after the words last inserted, insert Clause B:
(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public highway between bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, shall, unless the race or trial is authorised, and is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulations under this section, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) The Minister or, in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, for the purposes of the foregoing subsection the holding on a public highway of races or trials of speed of any class or description, or a particular race or trial of speed, in such cases as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the regulations and may prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations, and regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes or descriptions of races and trials.
(3) Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable in that behalf, the chief officer of police may give such directions with respect to the movement of, or the route to be followed by, vehicular traffic, during such period, as may be necessary or expedient to prevent or mitigate congestion or obstruction of traffic, or danger to or from traffic, in consequence of the holding of a race or trial of speed authorised by or under regulations under this section, including a direction that any road or part of a road specified in the direction shall be closed during any such period to vehicles or to vehicles of a class or description so specified, and section thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to directions given under this section as they apply in relation to the directions therein mentioned.


(4) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.
(5) In this section the expression 'public highway' does not include a footpath or bridleway.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This proposed new Clause deals with the regulation of cycle racing on highways. When I was replying to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who complained at the number of new Clauses we had to deal with, I said that in the case of one I would give a special explanation. He will understand from what I am now saying that it would not have been appropriate to introduce the Clause when the Bill itself was first introduced.
For a long time the only form of cycle racing on the roads of this country consisted of time trials. These are cycling trials in which individual riders start at timed intervals and race against the clock.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Molson: That form of racing was and still is regarded as comparatively innocuous. During and since the war there has been a considerable development of massed start cycle racing. The former Departmental Committee on Road Safety considered this matter in its interim report of 1944 and final report of 1947, and recommended that that form of racing should be discouraged because of the danger it caused, both to those participating and to other road users.
8.45 p.m.
In addition to these massed start cycle races, there is a new development which
has recently been introduced called the team time trial, in which groups of cyclists starting together at time intervals race against the clock, but in competition with other teams. In 1953, the Departmental Committee on Road Safety was asked to look into this matter. It considered it, and some members of the Committee, including especially chief constables, were in favour of prohibiting these massed start cycle races altogether. A majority of the Committee, however,

decided to recommend for a trial period of two years the voluntary adoption by the interested organisations, in consultation with Government Departments and the police, of certain conditions, and asked for the voluntary co-operation of the cycling organisations.
We allowed the full two years to elapse, and, in January this year, the Departmental Committee again considered reports from the police on the result of this Report with its recommendations which the Committee had made in January, 1954. It had been hoped that the cycling organisations would voluntarily have imposed the kind of restrictions which the Committee thought desirable. These were of a thoroughly reasonable nature, such as that the cyclists would be required to avoid major road junctions and right-hand turns in the middle of traffic, that the races should not take place through built-up areas, that notice should be given to the police a month before they were undertaken, and that they should be undertaken in agreement with the police.
Unfortunately, no attention at all was paid to those recommendations, and so, in January this year, the Departmental Committee drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to this fact and asked that something should be done about it. It is for that reason that we are now proposing to include this Clause in the Bill in order that these cycle races of all kinds can be brought under control.
The words of the new Clause are wide, and that is because it is so extraordinarily difficult to draw a distinction between cycle races which are really quite unobjectionable and those which we feel involve danger and inconvenience to traffic. I am willing to give the complete assurance to the House that it is only these particular kinds of dangerous races which we intend to prevent. We are prepared to discuss with the cycling associations the wording of the regulations, and I give a full assurance that we shall do our best to ensure that the kind of cycle races which have been going on for so long, and to which no one has taken any exception, shall still be allowed. It is only those particular forms of cycle racing which have been so strongly criticised by the Departmental Committee on Road Safety that will be affected by the regulations.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Some of us are not happy about this Clause because it is, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, very wide and gives the Minister power to ban completely cycle races of all types, including time trials, and we know that many of the cycling organisations are worried on that score. Strong representations have been made by some of them.
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what these mass starts really are. Races which have mass starts do not have the competitors lined up right across the road. All that happens is that they start two abreast and very quickly spread out. I doubt whether many hon. Members who drive cars have encountered large numbers of cyclists carrying out mass starts which constituted a danger to the public and to other users of the road or which obstructed the traffic. One could make out quite a strong case against such mass starts, but, as we are anxious to get on as speedily as possible this evening, I do not propose to develop the matter.
All I want to say is that we shall hold the Parliamentary Secretary to the assurance which he has given. We take it that in no circumstances is it proposed to ban time trials—that they will be permitted as they are at the present time—and that the regulations will provide only for regulating the type of race which, in the generally accepted sense, constitutes a danger to users of the highway, that what constitutes a danger will be agreed in consultation with the cycling organisations, and that this House will have full opportunity of discussing the regulations before they are imposed. If the Parliamentary Secretary gives those assurances, it may be that my hon. Friends will be satisfied.

Mr. William Teeling: I am afraid that I am still not particularly happy about the Clause. I cannot see why it has to be so comprehensive. If there is only one point about which my hon. Friend is worried, why have we not dealt with just that point? In another place the representative of the Government admitted that the Clause gives the Minister power ultimately to ban the sport completely.
My hon. Friend has said that he is introducing controls. Most of us on this side were elected to get rid of controls. I admit to reading Mr. Gordon's column every Sunday in the Sunday Express, in which he points out the unnecessary controls

being used in bureaucracy generally. I am told that these time trials are no longer being held. I can only say that I have visited these mass groups of cyclists all round Sussex.

Mr. Molson: Cycling?

Mr. Teeling: No, following, and sometimes ahead. At my age, I have given up that sort of thing. Nobody could possibly think that these groups of cyclists represented, as the impression was given, a vast number of cyclists all over the place. No more than fifty cyclists are allowed in these groups.
I have seen these events on a Sunday in Sussex, on the main road to Eastbourne, and on the main road to Brighton, and I could see no risk nor to other drivers on the road or the populace in general. They have been perfectly ordinary runs, and have been well run. I believe, that about four policemen are able to look after these runs, whereas for the veteran car event and for the Stock Exchange walk to Brighton about a hundred policemen are used to look after the traffic.
It may well be that in future we shall find athletics generally—even fox hunts go along the road, I suppose—all coming under the Ministry. In France, where cycle racing is a tremendously more developed sport than it is here, the traffic is certainly not stopped in any way. The traffic goes on one side of the road, and the police are in control in the towns and villages. I have followed such events for several miles and certainly nothing went wrong.
My right hon. Friend has also spoken of different reports which have been made, but in the White Paper of 1954 the Ministry of Transport stated that there was no evidence that the sport was dangerous. In 1955, the Ministry promised to take no action without consulting the controlling bodies. Have they consulted the controlling bodies now? It was also stated that there should not be more than 1,000 events a year. In actual fact, only about 800 have been held. This is supposed to be a dangerous sport and one which causes congestion. I hope I have cleared up the point about traffic congestion, especially in regard to the trip to Brighton.
As regards the danger, I gather that in the last five years the accident rate involving cyclists has been going down,


whereas that involving others on the road has been going up very considerably. Again, I understand that insurance companies, who must know what they are doing, charge these cyclists only 4s. for a third-party risk insurance policy of £2,500 and £250 personal risk. That policy covers the whole of Europe, and that rate is, I believe, the smallest in existence. If that is so why should we even think that cycling is dangerous?
My right hon. Friend may not think that he can reconsider this matter, but, if he cannot, will he make doubly sure that when these regulations are to be made he will stick to that one particular point? Otherwise, there is always the danger of some Minister at some other time seeking to use these powers more extensively. Chief constables and local authorities may also seek to do so, because for them it is easier and much better if they have not too many people to deal with. In actual fact there are only fifty at a time.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I agree very largely with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) has said in regard to Brighton. I take the view that no Minister of Transport should be given these unlimited powers over the cycling community. This is one of the misfortunes springing from these Amendments having been moved in another place. The time factor, the availability of the Amendments to hon. Members only last Wednesday, has made it physically impossible to put down reasoned Amendments in order to have a reasonable debate on this matter. In addition, we are expected to get through all these important Amendments with a very severe time limit.
I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give the House a very definite assurance that, before regulations are laid, a statement will be made to this House that there have been discussions between the various parties involved and that the House will have an opportunity to express its views. The position would be this. Whether it be a Labour Minister of Transport or a Minister of Transport on the benches opposite, once he had laid the regulations, the Whips would be applied and, whatever commonsense was expressed on the Opposition benches, the Whips would see that those regulations were carried.
9.0 p.m.
This is a question of the reasonable liberty of the poorer person, the person who uses a bicycle. This is a restriction which, if we attempted to apply it to any other type of vehicle, would be strongly opposed, and rightly so, in the public Press. The Minister is asking for these unlimited powers in an objectionable way. Unless he can give some definite assurance that hon. Members will at least have an opportunity of making then-views known to the Minister before the regulations are made, I hope that we shall turn down this Amendment. We have discussed this matter more or less on a non-party basis, and if the Minister cannot satisfy us that we can protect the cycling community from a stupid and irresponsible Minister in the future I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: Although, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), I am still an active cyclist, I nevertheless fully support this Amendment, and I am glad that the Government have decided to bring it in. At the same time, it is quite clear from what has already been said that there is considerable anxiety lest the powers which the Government are taking will be abused so as to bring to an end a popular and a rather important sport. It would be serious if it came to an end, if only from the point of view of our trade and export of lightweight cycles, which largely depends on this type of racing.
I feel sure that the fears are entirely groundless. Perhaps I might quote from the current number of the C.T.C. Gazette. After referring to this proposed new Clause, it says:
If it is passed, the law here will then resemble but will be less exacting than that in France where no race or trial can be held except under the signed authority of the Ministers of the Interior, of National Defence, of Public Works, of Transport and Tourism, of Education and of Finance.

Mr. Ernest Davies: That does not go as far as this Clause would permit the Minister to go. This Clause would permit him to ban the races completely.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is perfectly true, but only if the Government were to abuse their powers. I feel sure that they will not do that.
This Clause will depend upon the attitude of the racing bodies to the regulations. As matters stand, there is only one body which promotes races of this sort—the British League of Racing Cyclists—which was founded only in 1942, and this had very great success in promoting these races.
I entirely agree with everything that has been said with regard to the extraordinarily low accident rate. But to my mind the essential factor lies in the assurance which my right hon. Friend has already given, that in any new regulations the interested parties, including the League, will be consulted. I would, however, like to ask my right hon. Friend one question. Is it the intention that the regulations shall be so framed that it is left to the discretion of the local authority to decide in detail how they are to be enforced? I ask that because I think it is a matter of very great importance, since local conditions vary so tremendously.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: This might appear, from many points of view, to be a small matter, but it does raise an important question of principle. I was very disappointed to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.) I think it ill becomes the House for any Member on either side to be prepared to give carte blanche powers to a Minister, when no case whatever for the exercise of those powers has been made out, and to say he is quite content to leave it to the good offices of the Minister to see that those powers are not abused. In many countries, that is exactly how dictatorial powers have been allowed to emerge. I hope that when we go into the Lobby tonight on this Amendment, as I hope we shall do, we shall have with us a big following from the benches opposite.
As I see it, this is a question of the liberty of the subject and one which ought to be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Hobson: A matter of common decency.

Mr. Mulley: I feel that a very great affront was done to the House by putting this Clause through in another place. We spent some three months in Committee considering this matter and we had a very lengthy Report stage. The whole bag of

tricks was given away by the right hon. Gentleman when he said—and I took down his words—that the Minister's attention had been drawn to this matter in January last.
It seems to me that there are two possible conclusions one may draw from that, either that he and his right hon. Friend in considering the whole matter of road safety, as they were allegedly doing in presenting this Bill to the House, had allowed any idea of possible accidents arising from this sort of racing to escape their minds, or, secondly, they had no reason, until their attention was drawn to this matter, as he puts it, to suppose that any danger from these races existed. We must draw one or other of those conclusions, as I see it.

Mr. Molson: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the explanation I gave. The Departmental Committee on Road Safety considered this matter and presented a Report in January, 1954. It recommended that no action should be taken for two years in order to give the cyclists an opportunity of regulating things themselves. It was, therefore, only in January, 1956, that it became proper for us to consider what action to take, because the cyclists had been promised two years in which to put their house in order.

Mr. Mulley: I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and found it most unsatisfactory. I will only point out to him that there is a long time between January and July.
I should have thought that if the Minister was presenting a Bill before the House of Commons when that two year period had elapsed, the least he would have done would be to ask for a report as a matter of urgency so that he could have introduced an Amendment in Committee or on Report. This is an attempt to rush this Clause through in the last minutes of a very important Measure. The least the right hon. Gentleman could do, I feel, would be to bring some evidence of the danger and inconvenience that these cycle races cause. We have had evidence from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) as to the very low insurance rates which are charged by people who are in insurance not for the benefit of cycling but for the profit of the insurance companies. Their


rates are not calculated on philanthropic or athletic considerations. Certainly, no figures have been put before us tonight of any accidents which have occurred as a result of holding these races.
I would suggest that, before the House is asked to form an opinion, we should at least hear the other side of the case. Up to the present, all the speeches, in my considered opinion, have been against the Clause, and at least we ought to have the other point of view from the Minister before we make up our minds finally on the matter.
The point which weighs most heavily with me is the very wide manner in which the Clause is drawn. If there is a particular class of race to which objection can be taken, surely it should be specified in the Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said, the Clause as drafted is sufficient to permit the Minister to ban this sport altogether. I would suggest that it is both a harmless sport and one of value both from an athletic point of view and also looking, as we must these days, to the sordid commercial possibility of our exports. The exports of the cycle industry have increased, and I believe that the eminence of our cyclists, which they can attain only by these races, is one of the factors involved.
I ask the Minister to give a little more thought to this matter than evidently the Government have so far given to it. My hon. Friend suggested that we ought not to have the regulations until there have been consultations and until we have had a fuller opportunity of knowing what views are expressed. Furthermore, by the negative procedure, regulations have statutory effect as soon as they are laid. If we pray against them, there is no possibility of amending the regulations. As my hon. Friend has said, no doubt the Whips would be on and the matter would be virtually outside the sphere of argument.
If the Minister cannot give an assurance tonight that the Government will withdraw the Clause and consider it again, we should vote against it. I cannot accept assurances from Ministers when legislation is of this wide and comprehensive character and will interfere with the sport and freedom of a large number of quite important and useful citizens.

Sir F. Medlicott: I find myself compelled to accept the principle of the Clause but wholly dissatisfied with the reasons that my right hon. Friend has given for supporting it. I think that there is great confusion of thought behind the Clause, because it has not been made at all clear whether the Government are worried more about congestion on the roads or danger. No evidence has been given as to whether any undue number of accidents has been caused by what, I think, is aimed at by the Clause—the massed cycle race. That is the type of race which is the object of the Clause, and I think it is well known that those races are run by the British League of Racing Cyclists.
There seems to be abroad a certain amount of prejudice against the cyclist as such. Amongst the motoring community, there is a certain prejudice, I think, because the cyclist does not pay tax. It seems to me that instead of being sorry about it, we should rejoice that anybody can escape the network of taxation. We certainly should not be prejudiced against cyclists on that account.
There is, however, a prejudice also because of the number of accidents which involve cyclists. I venture to suggest that the cyclists who take part in the mass races are the cyclists who are hardly ever involved in accidents. We all know that the dangerous cyclist is the wobbler. The competent racing cyclist follows a definite track and is the least dangerous of all cyclists on the roads.
I was rather sorry to hear from my right hon. Friend of the difficulties which apparently have arisen in the world of cycling in agreeing the conditions under which races should take place. Incidentally the term "mass racing" is misleading. The numbers who take part are strictly limited, and from the start they are never allowed to ride more than two abreast. All fair-minded motorists know very well that we rarely have trouble from the kind of racing cyclist who is organised in the mass races.
The difficulty presented by the Clause has not been covered by my right hon. Friend in his reference to the negotiations which took place whilst—presumably—the Clause was being framed. I am told that although there is a joint committee which is supposed to speak for the cycling world, the British League of


Racing Cyclists has never been able to obtain representation on that committee, although it organises the sport of which my right hon. Friend has spoken. I am given to understand that that organisation has been kept out of that consultative body, and I hope that as a result of this debate that omission will be remedied.
9.15 p.m.
There seems to be confusion about this Clause. We have been given no evidence to show that these cyclists are the cause of any casualties. Indeed, evidence shows the contrary. If the aim of the Clause is to avoid congestion, then it seems to me that it is not wide enough. There are several activities on our roads which are far more troublesome than these events. For instance, there is the London to Brighton walk, the "Old crocks" race, and—dare I mention it?—the London to Barking police walk, and that annual traffic headache—the Lord Mayor's Show. There are many obstructive tendencies on our roads, and I cannot see why the racing cyclists should be picked out as they are by this Clause. We do not want the roads to become the monopoly of the motorists. There is something to be said for encouraging physical exercise.
Rather derogatory reference was made in another place to cyclists. The great Tour de France was referred to in these terms:
There is the Tour de France, where the whole sweat of cycles goes all over France dislocating the traffic for miles around.
I think the Tour de France is a wonderful event, and that we should be proud if we could achieve something like it in this country. I would like Britain to get a better footing, if I may use that expression in this context, in the world of international cycle racing.
I hope that my hon. Friend will clear up one matter. He referred to "preventing" certain kinds of cycle racing. I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue, because the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Mancroft, in another place said:
I am not suggesting that we wish to ban it, or to be hostile towards it; all we seek to do under this clause is to make certain that it is carried out under proper conditions…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd July, 1956; Vol. 19, c. 303–4.]

I hope that in arranging those conditions there will be consultation with the bodies representative of the world of cycling, and that something will be done to make sure that this healthy, vigorous sport is allowed to be developed and encouraged in the interests of British prestige and sport generally.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) has spoken, as he usually does, as a sort of political Billy Graham. He is prepared to take anything from Ministers by an act of faith. He himself referred to the danger of being a wobbler on the roads. He is a political wobbler, as a National Liberal usually is. Consequently, he makes a speech with a little criticism in it and some exhortation, but when we go into the Lobbies he will be behind the Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "On a tandem."] We on this side of the House are prepared to divide the House on this Lords Amendment.
The Minister insistently told us what committees had been doing and that they had reported, but he did not once tell us any solid reason for which the Government came to their decision. Not once did he address himself to the reasons that have brought the Government to this decision; except that they had given racing cyclists two years to put their house in order. That is a meaningless cliché in this context. It is merely a matter of how they should organise their races on the road.
The expression "trust the Minister" does not mean anything either. The courts are not interested in what is in the mind of Parliament but only in what is in the Clause. It is the easiest thing in the world for a chief constable, dressed in his little brief authority, to say, "We do not like it. Ban it." I doubt whether any one of their Lordships has ever ridden a bicycle. It is a fact that if anyone surveys the other place—which we are told is a cure for admiring it—he will find that most of the members are old, and it is usually true that when men have got too old to set young men bad examples they try to teach them good ideas.
This Clause was inserted into the Bill in another place. I attended the Standing Committee for over three months, and it would have been perfectly possible for the Minister to have brought this proposal forward in Committee where we


could have argued about it and eventually made this a respectable Clause. All the powers which could ban this sport could have been limited to the matter which the Minister is now pinpointing, namely, the question of the mass starting of races. I do not think that mass starts are mentioned anywhere in the Clause.
It may be necessary, in order to secure a proper prestige for a great sport which has a considerable degree of importance in connection with the export trade, to put other things on one side for one day or so in a year. Cyclists are an important part of the community. Nobody bothers when foxhounds go through a country town and hold up the traffic, least of all their lordships.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is it not a fact that under the Clause the police will have power for the first time to close roads to enable these races to be run more smoothly and efficiently?

Mr. Pannell: I am dealing with foxhounds. The hon. and gallant Member had better interrupt at the right point. The Minister has not proceeded at more than 5 m.p.h. since we started our debate, and if we are to have any more irrelevant interruptions we shall be speaking at this time tomorrow night.
I was making the point that nobody objects to foxhounds moving along the road, and nobody objects to riding schools. Somebody has mentioned the London to Brighton road race and also the Old Crocks Race, which I agree would be a suitable subject for discussion in another place. I do not object to all these activities. They are part of the social habits of our people. This is a vicious form of Clause designed to strike against the handsomest vehicle on the road. The Clause is too wide and it gives the Minister too much power. It seems to me that most local authorities and chief constables already have all the powers they need under the present law.
This is a miserable device introduced at the last moment. The whole business of introducing these Lords Amendments in the last days of a long Session is a complete abuse of the Government's powers. The fact that this is a road safety Bill seems to me one more reason for our sitting a few days longer. It is not only events in the far ends of the earth with which we should be concerned and not

only death on the road but the legitimate recreational activities and amusements of our people.
The Minister has not given one solid reason in favour of the Clause and I hope that we shall divide the House against it. Further than that, after certain speeches from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) and others, I hope they will follow us into the Lobby and show that they are not the dumb, driven cattle of the Government.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I, for one, oppose this proposed Clause, and I shall most certainly vote against it, if necessary. I want to say why. My first reason is that I came to this House rather sooner than I might have done by reason of being a broken-down athlete. I certainly am not going to impose on any other sport restrictions which I would not have on my own sports and those with which I have been associated all my athletic life.
For example, the athlete on the roads will not be prohibited in his long-distance running. The cricketers are not subject to some sort of restriction because they play on a village green where a ball may be hit over the highway; nor is a person who likes to travel in an old car, such as I used to play with as a youngster when I could not afford a new car. So I see no earthly reason why those engaged in cycle racing should suffer this damage.
Furthermore, there is only one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) with which I disagree. He seemed to think he was defending some proletarian right. I personally think that I am defending a good aristocratic right. Indeed, I have always regarded the philosophy of the Tory Party to be one to protect the sportsman in every field of sport.
In the old days the Tory Party received many votes from very good types of sportsmen who objected to any form of control over their sport. I should need a very strong case to be made out at the proper time before I would for one moment support any Clause which would limit, or give any Minister power to dictate over cycle racing or any other sport. The fact of the matter is that one day we might reach the horror of the Labour Party being returned to power. If that terrible day comes there is an


even chance that the present Leader of the Opposition might be misguided enough to make some hon. Lady, such as the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham Minister of Transport. Her attitude of mind to professional boxing being what it is, if that attitude were applied to cycle racing, what a situation we should find then as regards cycle racing on the roads.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman mean the right hon. Lady who now represents a safe seat in Lancashire?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, I am very sorry, I had forgotten. I mean the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill.)
I cannot change my views because I am sitting on this side of the House. I agree with the view expressed in other days on that side of the House, when the party now represented on this side of the House was on the other side of the House, that we should never give to Ministers powers which they might abuse. For the last ten or fifteen years I have heard Ministers say "Of course we shall be reasonable; of course we shall not impose a ban on this or that." The job of the House is not to give them the chance to impose it. I have not the slightest intention in any circumstances of doing anything other than voting against the Clause. I merely hope that I can persuade the Minister to withdraw it.
9.30 p.m.
I want to pose this question fairly and squarely to the Minister. Does he think the new Clause would have got through Standing Committee. Not a chance. We spent a very long time in Standing Committee, and there was every opportunity for the proposal to be brought forward then, but it was not. It has been brought forward at a later stage in another place for one purpose only, that it would then reach this House when we wanted to go away for the Recess. It so happens that, unlike other hon. Members, I do not want to go away for the Recess anyway. I want a debate on Suez in any event before I go, and, therefore, I am content to stay here all night on this subject to see whether I can persuade the Government to give way.
I have listened to the views which have been expressed on this side of the House, and it seems to me that those of us who take an interest in road traffic matters are utterly disunited on the Clause. None of us likes the Clause as it stands, and I do not believe that any of us feels that it is necessary at this stage.
I have not been engaged in cycling since I was at Cambridge, and then I preferred to run. I suggest that those concerned with cycling who have heard the debate know that they are in danger of being regulated if they do not take reasonable measures. Is there any evidence at all that those who are concerned with cycle racing are not prepared to listen to advice from the police in order to assist?
I want to make three points. First, there is no evidence at all that there have been any excessive number of road accidents arising from cycle racing. Secondly, there is no evidence that racing cyclists have created any undue obstruction whatever. Consequently, it seems to me that the case has not been made out. Even if it had been made out on those points, I think we should go to those concerned with the sport and ask them to make proper regulations. There is no evidence that they have been asked to make regulations governing the sport. Do hon. Members think the M.C.C. would tolerate this sort of behaviour about cricket? I am sure that it would not.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has not been a single prosecution for obstruction arising from road races?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am indebted to the hon. Member. I do not know whether that is so or not.
I also want to say—this is about cycling generally—that I think there is a feeling on the part of the general public that some club rallies do not behave with proper road manners. Some of these cyclists ride three and four abreast. However, the Clause does not deal with that at all. If this were a provision to prohibit people from riding three or four abreast, the House might well give due weight to that argument, but that is another matter altogether. If there were to be regulations to prevent club rallies from failing to comply with certain provisions, I should certainly look with the


keenest interest at them, but the purpose of the Clause is to regulate cycle racing, and, so far as I know, racing cyclists are the elite of the cycling world, the very people who are generally the best behaved.
I believe that the whole matter can be dealt with by reasonable persuasion. The case for statutory intervention at this stage is not proved. Even if the need for statutory intervention at this stage had been proved, it is too late for it to be introduced through the back door, after the Bill has passed through another place.
For these reasons, I invite the Minister, who is always most approachable and amenable, to reconsider the matter. I have not had an opportunity to express my views to him because the Bill has come back to us so suddenly. I speak for no lobby; I have not been lobbied by anybody. I merely take the view, quite sincerely, that this Lords Amendment is not good legislation and that it is contrary to Tory principles.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I think that all of us on this side of the House will agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies.) I am not so sure whether we agree with his statement about the philosophy of the Tory Party, but at least we are interested that that has come out of the debate. I have not heard a single speech from the other side of the House in support of the new Clause.
It seems to me that the debate has been very similar to what happened when the Bill was being discussed in Committee upstairs. It was a very good Committee. We discussed these subjects in a non-political fashion, and the number of occasions on which the Minister agreed to take matters back and give them further consideration was remarkable. Had this Amendment been discussed in Committee upstairs, I am convinced that the Minister would have also taken that back for further consideration.
The case against the Amendment has been made out. Sufficient about the principle embodied in the Amendment has been said, and I rise only to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whom I am glad to see in his place, what the position in Scotland is. Has there been any objection

from chief constables? Has there been any consultation with the cycling interests, or has the Scottish Office merely decided to tail along with the English Minister?

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: In order to shorten the debate, I intend to put my argument in the form of four questions to my right hon. Friend. Firstly, is it a fact that since 1942, when the British League of Racing Cyclists was formed, there has not been a single serious accident involving a competitor, or spectator of a road cycling race? Secondly, do not the police already possess sufficient powers to prevent a form of race which might cause obstruction or danger to the competitors or to the spectators?
Thirdly, does my right hon. Friend not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that it is slightly absurd that we should introduce these regulations for the most careful category, the most skilled category of cyclists, when we do nothing at all about those crowds of cyclists who often fill a narrow road from one side to the other in cycling clubs? Fourthly, how can my right hon. Friend explain this sentence in a letter which I have received from the British League of Racing Cyclists:
Cycle racing should not be banned but greater co-operation should be sought with the British League of Racing Cyclists for better control "?
I cannot reconcile that statement from the main cycling organisation with the suggestion, which I believe my right hon. Friend made in his opening speech, that he has in vain appealed to that organisation for co-operation. If, apparently, it has improved the standards of safety upon the roads, and if the police already have the necessary powers, and if the League is prepared, as it says, to enter into detailed conversations on how to improve the situation even more, why is the Clause necessary?

Mr. George Chetwynd: This has been an incredible debate. We have heard a wonderful new slogan for the Tory Party—"Be a sport and vote Tory". It seems to me that the members of the Tory Party will need the assistance of a lot of sporting people at the next Election to get them out of their difficulties. In view of the criticisms


levelled at this proposed new Clause from both sides of the House, I fail to see how the Minister can persist with it. He has been punctured not only in the front wheel but in the back wheel as well, and we had a remarkable picture of one of his hon. Friends trying to help him out by attacking him right, left and centre and then saying that he would not vote against him. It would seem that the feeling of the House is completely against this new Clause, and I hope that we shall be able to defeat the Government in the Division Lobbies.
The Minister based his argument mainly on the question of the danger involved, but he gave no evidence of what was the danger. He made no statement about what particular kind of cycle road race he was aiming at, and I think that he should tell us exactly what form of road cycle racing he is referring to. Would an event similiar to the Tour de France be banned and, if so, why? Would time trials be banned, and, if so, why? Most of the club races take place on Sunday mornings, long before many hon. Members are up, when the roads are free from heavy traffic and there is little danger. The Minister should be more forthcoming about this than he has been so far. He should tell us exactly what he wishes to ban, and give us reasons why, and see whether there is not a better way in which he could achieve what he desires than by the clumsy method proposed here.
Some comments have been made about cycling clubs, and I agree that on occasions members of these clubs can cause danger. But most of them are extremely well behaved, and I should not like it to be thought that this House has anything against them. The point has been made that racing cyclists are skilled men who are able to get in and out of traffic no matter how thick it is. It seems to me that, apart from walking, the quickest way of getting about nowadays is by taking part in one of these cycle races. In view of what has been said, I hope that the. Minister will withdraw this Clause and see whether he can arrive at some more amicable arrangement.

Sir Peter Roberts: I wish to say that I am not able to support my right hon. Friend, unless we can be told something much more convincing than we have yet heard.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It is quite clear that the feeling of the House is against this Clause. Quite recently, I moved the rejection of an Amendment from another place to the Hotel Proprietors (Liabilities and Rights) Bill. I did so on the ground that it is quite wrong to interfere with private rights unless first there is proper consultation. Here again we have exactly the same thing—a bright idea thought up somewhere else. It is quite the wrong way to legislate. I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—for whom we all have a very great respect—to recognise the will of the House in this matter. It is quite clear that this right ought not to be interfered with in this casual way, when the interests concerned were not consulted before the introduction of the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson: It is only with the permission of the House that I can speak again, but in view of the number of questions which have been put to me I am confident that hon. Members will give me an opportunity of answering them. First, I should like to give the House my own personal assurance that it did not occur to us for a moment to try to slip the Clause into the Bill in another place because we thought that it would not pass a Committee of this House.
The facts are that the Clause was moved by the Government at the special request of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety.

Mr. Hobson: They are not members of this House.

Mr. Molson: Hon. Members opposite are quite aware that it is a consultative committee which was actually constituted in its present form at the time when the party opposite was in power. It was set up to be representative of Government Departments, the police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other bodies concerned with road safety. It is an entirely non-political body, composed of public-spirited people who try to make recommendations in order to reduce road accidents.
On four occasions this Committee and its predecessor—I say that because it was reconstituted in 1947—has considered this question of massed start cycle racing. The reason why it was not possible for us to take a decision in this matter until


January this year was that the Report was presented in January, 1954, at which time an undertaking was given to the cycling interests that for a period of two years we should not take action, and we appealed to them to give effect to the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee.
I have been asked why, in moving that the House should agree to the Amendment, I did not go into the details of the way in which these different kinds of cycle race are conducted. I did not do so because I thought that hon. Members who are concerned with this matter and who have received letters from cycling interests would have read the Report of the Committee. It appointed a sub-committee and received a good deal of evidence upon the subject. I should like to read paragraph 18 of its conclusions and recommendations. It said:
We wish to emphasise the following points. First, the presence of a comparatively large body of cyclists racing against each other on the public roads at speeds between 20 and 30 miles an hour or even faster must inevitably create a hazard, particularly in built-up areas. This hazard can only be avoided at the expense of other road users, who are subjected to inconvenience and delay.
Secondly, massed-start events organised on a commercial basis inevitably involve publicity, and large numbers of vehicles and spectators congregate at certain points on the highway. This is particularly so in built-up areas, and, consequently, adds further to the already serious problem of traffic congestion.
Thirdly, we attribute the fact that very few accidents have taken place largely to effective control by the police. If the sport is allowed unrestricted development and the same measure of effective control is maintained, an intolerable and unjustifiable burden would be placed on the Police Force.
Fourthly, while it is arguable that the general public might occasionally accept some limitation of their rights on the highway for genuine sporting purposes, we doubt whether they would do so where commercial interests predominate. We have examined the possibility that the public might be prepared to accept activities of this kind…. We doubt, however, whether public interest in the sport would be sufficient to justify this, and in any event, such a development would seem to be unacceptable to the promoters of this form of racing.
These considerations taken together lead us to the conclusion that massed start cycle racing is a potential source of sufficient danger to the public to warrant more positive action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
On occasions during the debate on this Bill, we have been criticised because there are not more provisions in it dealing

with road safety, and when the body set up by the previous Government to advise us on road safety presents a report of this kind, it seems to us that it is not a matter that should be ignored.

Mr. Mulley: The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that he is speaking by leave of the House, and ought to show a little courtesy in reply. Will he cut the matter short by giving us the number of accidents which have occurred as a result of these races?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: That is not the point.

Mr. Molson: That is not the point. I have indicated that it is chiefly because of the immense trouble taken by the police that more accidents have not occurred.

Mr. Paget: What race meeting, what point-to-point meeting, does not involve the police controlling the traffic on the roads for a long period—much longer than for a bicycle race?

Mr. Molson: I do protest at hon. Gentlemen opposite objecting to me reading from this Report at some length. I have been criticised for not advancing arguments during the debate, but now that I am replying to the points that have been raised, I am criticised because I am reading the Report at length. [Interruption.] Really, if hon. Gentlemen intend to divide on this issue, I ask them at least to listen to the arguments being put forward.
In January, 1954, the Committee recommended
…that for a period of two years the sport of massed start cycle racing, including team time trials, should be allowed to continue on the following conditions".
These conditions are important, for hon. Gentlemen who have expressed a dislike of the wideness of the terms of this Amendment have agreed that something in the way of regulations may be required, and these are the kind of regulations which we intend to include when we act under this Amendment:
(i) that the three bodies interested should immediately set up a control council to administer an agreement on the lines of the one negotiated but not yet ratified.
(ii) That the number of events in any one year should be limited to one circuit of Britain or similar circuit and an agreed number of local races.


(iii) With the exception of the circuit of Britain, massed start events should be begun and completed before 9 a.m."—
I will come back to that point later.
(iv) Circuits forming part of courses should not be less than 15 miles in length.
(v) Courses should be planned so that major road junctions and right hand turns are avoided.
(vi) There should be no racing through built-up areas.
(vii) The start and finish of each race should take place off the highway.
(viii) Courses and arrangements …should be agreed with the Police in advance, one month's notice at least being given of any race.

Mr. Mulley: Tory freedom.

Mr. Molson: The cycling organisations have had two years in which to organise themselves and to introduce regulations, including regulations of this kind. I venture to suggest to the House that those are reasonable conditions which might well be applied. It is because the organisations have not been willing in these two years to act upon them that we consider that it is now necessary for the Government to take action. We gave them their opportunity for two years and now we think it necessary to take action.
I am prepared to undertake that there shall be the fullest consultation between my right hon. Friend and these organisations before any regulations are made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] There is not the slightest intention of bringing to an end or preventing the kind of time trials which are taking place at the present time. It is not even intended completely to ban mass start races, but only to apply to them the kind of regulations recommended in this Report. I put this provision forward on behalf of the Government as a reasonable provision for road safety and for preventing the congestion of traffic, and I undertake that the regulations shall not in any way go beyond what is needed for those two purposes.

Mr. James Griffiths: Without entering into the merits or demerits of the proposals, one thing seems to be quite clear. A good many hon. Members on both sides of the House gave a great deal of time and thought to the consideration of this Bill in its earlier stages. They have complained that this is such an important matter that full consideration

should have been given to it in Committee instead of it being presented to the House only a day or two before we rise for the Summer Recess.
It seems to me that if the House pronounced freely on the matter this Clause would be defeated. I have not heard a single word spoken in favour of the Bill from either side of the House. I know that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has been unable to be present, but I would point out to him that the sense of the House is that this Clause ought not to be voted upon, and that if a free vote of the House upon it was allowed it would be defeated. This is a non-political matter, and I think I am voicing the view of the House when I say that hon. Members would prefer the Minister to take back his Clause rather than divide upon it.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am glad of the opportunity which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has given me of apologising to the House very sincerely for being unable to be present until now. All I can say is that I have just come from one of a series of meetings which have been going on since the Bill started. I apologise, but I could not be here.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to look again at this matter. I know it is the wish of the House, and it has, I understand, been expressed today, to try to get this Bill, so before I deal with the specific Lords Amendment which is now before us, I think that all of us in this House might just turn our minds for a moment to the great necessity there is, I believe, to get this Measure on the Statute Book before we rise for the Summer Recess.
As every right hon. and hon. Member knows, any alterations which are made to it mean that the Bill will have to go back to the other place, and that perhaps means that it will have to be deferred another two months or more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, because do not think there would be time to deal with it before. That is one point which is, I think, quite germane to our consideration if this House wants to get the Bill—and, indeed, we have a vast amount of work to do on it departmentally if we are to implement it.
As to the particular Clause, Mr. Speaker, the guarantee in this Clause—and I underline everything which my right hon. Friend has said—is that nothing at all will be done under it until there has been full and proper consultation on the matter with the cycling associations and other interests. I say, quite firmly, that not a single act will be taken to make any regulations or anything else until there has been that full consultation. When that has been done, if anything is brought forward that is objected to by this House, the regulations will have to lie upon the Table and can be prayed against.
1 can only make this pledge; that full consultations will be held, and that all the cycling associations and everybody interested will have full opportunity to put their case. They will be listened to, and if what they say is at all reasonable it shall be put in the regulations, subject only to the general overriding consideration of road safety, as my right hon. Friend has said.
I have thought long and deeply about this. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that he has not been in very much on this Bill, though, of course, he has a perfect right to intervene, as we all have. Nevertheless, I have lived with this Bill since I have been Minister. I have given it all the consideration I can, and I honestly and sincerely believe that this is the right course of action. I therefore respectfully recommend to the House that we proceed and, if necessary, divide, but bearing in mind that I have

pledged that full consideration will be given to all the views which have been expressed.

Mr. John Hynd: The Minister has just given us an assurance that the provisions of subsection (4) will be strictly complied with, but are the regulations confined to subsection (2)? Subsection (1) provides that:
Any person who promotes or takes part in a race …
shall be committing an offence. That is without issue of regulations, and that applies also to subsection (3.) In those circumstances, would he tell us what his assurance means, because it seems to me that, in spite of his assurance, offences can be committed.

Mr. Watkinson: The fact is, of course, that the penalty provisions are not at all operative until we have made some regulations. All I can say is that the regulations will be framed to take the most careful account of all that is said. I really think that there is not just the possibility but the certainty of getting a reasonable agreement here. That is what I want to see. That has been our aim with the Bill all through the piece. As has been said, it is not a party political matter. It is something that has to be negotiated and consulted about, and I believe that if we accept the Clause we need not worry about the penalty provisions, but they must be there to police it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 162.

Division No. 275.]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Aitken, W. T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Allan, B. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, E. D. L.


Alport, C. J. M.
Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Brooman-White, R. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bryan, P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Ashton, H.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Baldwin, A. E.
Carr, Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H.
Fell, A.


Barlow, Sir John
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Barter, John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fort, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, John


Bidgood, J. C.
Crouch, R. F,
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Currie, G. B. H.
Freeth, D. K.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, J. C. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gibson-Watt, D.


Black, C. W.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Glover, D.


Body, R. F.
Deedes, W. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan




Gough, C. F. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Gower, H. R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Green, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Gurden, Harold
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McKibbin, A. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesld)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P.(Kens'gt'n, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mawby, R. L.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hornby, R. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vosper, D. F.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wade, D. W.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Harmar
Wall, Major Patrick


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Iremonger, T. L.
O'Neill, Hn. phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I. J.
Woollam, John Victor


Kerr, H. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kershaw, J. A.
Pott, H. P.



Kimball, M.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirk, P. M.
Profumo, J. D.
Mr Richard Thompson and


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ramsden, J. E.
Mr. Godber.


Leavey, J. A.
Redmayne, M.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dye, S.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Baird, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Kenyon, C.


Balfour, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
King, Dr. H. M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, G. M.


Beswick, F.
Finch, H. J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lindgren, G. S.


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, J. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McInnes, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hall, Rt. Hn. Clenvil (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
McLeavy, Frank


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Mahon, Simon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, G. R.
Mason, Roy


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Messer, Sir F.


Champion, A. J.
Holmes, Horace
Mikardo, Ian


Chetwynd, G. R.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mitchison, G. R.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Monslow, W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mort, D. L.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Moss, R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moyle, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Mulley, F. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Deer, G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.
Oram, A. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, M.







Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Owen, W. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Watkins, T. E.


Paget, R. T.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Snow, J. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Pargiter, G. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Parker, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Parkin, B. T.
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, T. F.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Rankin, John
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woof, R. E.


Redhead, E. C.
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Zilliacus, K.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn



Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Usborne, H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO EXEMPTION FROM DRIVING TEST.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 34, at end insert:
C.—(1) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section six of the Act of 1934 (which enables an applicant who held a licence before nineteen hundred and thirty-four to obtain a licence without passing a driving test) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In paragraph (a) of the said subsection (1) (which makes it a condition of the granting of a licence that the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he has at some time passed the prescribed test) for the words 'at some time' there shall be substituted the words 'during the period of ten years ending on the date of coming into force of the licence applied for'.
(3) The said subsection (1) shall not apply to an applicant for a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of any class or description who satisfies the licensing authority that within the period of ten years ending on the date of coming into force of the licence applied for he has held a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of that class or description, not being a licence granted by virtue of subsection (7) of section six of the Act of 1934 (which empowers the Minister to make regulations dispensing with the need to pass a test where the applicant is not resident in Great Britain.)
(4) In this section the expression 'licence' means a licence under Part I of the Act of 1930 other than a provisional licence.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This arises out of a Clause moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington.) Although he is not able to be present, as I understand, I have satisfied myself that he agrees that this new Clause fully meets the point he put forward, and indeed goes a little further.
I can state its purpose very quickly. It is to amend the existing provisions of the

Road Traffic Act, 1934, in order to provide that persons who have not driven for a period of ten years must pass a driving test before they get a licence. The persons primarily affected will, of course, be those who previously held substantive driving licences and have ceased to hold such licences for ten years or longer. It is, I think, a useful addition to the Bill, and a very good addition to our road safety measures. I hope that the House will accept it in that spirit.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause D.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO GROUPS OF VEHICLES COVERED BY DRIVING TESTS.)

Lords Amendment: After the Amendment last inserted, insert:
D.—(1) The classes or descriptions of vehicles in relation to which, for the purpose of granting a licence by virtue of the passing of a prescribed test of competence to drive, the test shall be treated as having been the prescribed test shall include not only any class or description for which the test was the prescribed test when it was passed but also—

(a) if the test was passed before the coming into operation of this section, any other class or description for which the test was sufficient at the coming into operation of this section,
(b) whenever the test was passed, any other class or description for which, by virtue of regulations under subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1934, the test, or any other test declared by such regulations to be equivalent thereto, was sufficient at the time of the application for the licence, being a class or description to which this paragraph is applied by such regulations,
(c) whenever the test was passed, any other class or description which by virtue of this section has been comprised in a licence previously granted to the applicant.
(2) A person who has been granted a licence to drive vehicles of any class or description by virtue of subsection (1) of section two of


the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1947 (which conferred rights on persons who had held provisional licences under emergency provisions to be granted licences to drive without passing a test) shall for the purposes of this section be treated as if he had, immediately before he was first so granted such a licence, passed the test sufficient at that time for that class or description of vehicles.
(3) Where the holder of a licence under Part I of the Act of 1930 surrenders it and applies under section four of the Act of 1930 for a new licence, then if by virtue of this section he is entitled to the grant of a licence comprising any class or description of vehicles not comprised in the surrendered licence he shall, if he so requires, be granted a new licence on payment of a reduced fee of two shillings and sixpence; but a licence granted on payment of the reduced fee shall continue in force only for the period for which the surrendered licence would have continued if not surrendered.
(4) In this section the expression 'licence' means a licence to drive granted under Part I of the Act of 1930, and references in this section to a test sufficient at any time for a class or description of vehicles are references to a test which at that time was the prescribed test therefor or the passing of which authorised the granting at that time of a licence comprising that class or description.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The main purpose of this new Clause is to remove an anomaly which, under the law as it stands, arises when additions are made to the classes or descriptions of vehicles which a person becomes qualified to drive if he takes a particular test. At present, when such additions are made a person who takes the test can drive the vehicles for which the test was already a qualification and vehicles of the additional class or classes. It sometimes happens, however, that a person who has taken exactly the same test in the past cannot drive the additional vehicles without taking a further test. This obviously is not what anybody intended, and the new Clause simply provides for the removal of this anomaly in cases where it has occurred and enables Ministers in the future to prevent it from arising again.
The Clause also enables a person who becomes entitled to drive an additional vehicle to obtain a new licence straight away and at a reduced fee of 2s. 6d. Again, this is a useful provision, which will remove an obvious anomaly, and I commend it to the House as a sensible addition.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: Will the Minister be kind enough to settle a point which I have not yet had an opportunity to check? Section 2 (1) of the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1947, covers men who came into the road transport industry during the war and who, I think, would have had provisional licences because there was no driving test at that time. Will the new Clause cover that class of man and put him beyond any doubt that another test will be necessary?

Mr. Watkinson: I am advised that that is so.

Mr. H. R. Spence: The new Clause will be very much appreciated in the rural areas. I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend about this in the past, and I should like to thank him for it, because it will help tractor drivers.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 15.—(PROVISION OF PARKING PLACES WHERE CHARGES MADE.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 12, line 25, leave out "the parking places" and insert "any parking place so designated".

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 27, leave out from beginning to "in".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be convenient if I also speak to the next Amendment in line 29. The object of the two Amendments—the first is only a preliminary to the second—is to require the Minister to consider the interests of owners and occupiers of premises adjoining areas where parking places are proposed. That is its only object.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 12, line 29, after "section" insert:
the Minister shall consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, and in particular the matters to which he shall have regard".

In page 13, line 30, leave out "the parking places" and insert "any parking place so designated".

In page 14, line 1, leave out "as aforesaid" and insert "of the operation of a parking place".

In line 2, leave out "to which the transfer relates".

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 22, after "area" insert "in England or Wales".

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another Scottish application Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 24, leave out from "order" to end of line 26, and insert:
(8) The Secretary of Slate may by order provide that subsection (1) of this section shall apply to any such area in Scotland as may be specified in the order; and as respects any such area—

(a) references to the Minister in the provisions of this Act relating to parking places shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State;
(b) the expression 'local authority' in the said provisions means a county council or a town council "

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new subsection is of Scottish application.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 27, leave out "the last foregoing subsection" and insert "subsection (7) or (8) of this section".

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment necessitated by the inclusion of the new subsection (8) which provides for the Scottish procedure on this matter.

Clause 16.—(AMOUNT OF CHARGES FOR PARKING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) If it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description for indicating in the prescribed manner, as respects each space provided for the leaving of vehicles, whether the initial charge has been paid and

whether the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has expired; and—

(a) payment of the initial charge shall be made by the insertion of coins in the apparatus and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating the apparatus;
(b) subject to the next following paragraph, if at any time while a vehicle is left in the parking place the apparatus relating to the space in which it is left gives the prescribed indication, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has been duly paid and that the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has already expired;
(c) if it is proved that the time for which the vehicle has been left in the parking place is less than the standard period, or, where paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section has effect, less than half the standard period, paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not have effect but it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has not been duly paid for the vehicle."

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment applies to the short-term parking places and makes provision for the following matters not adequately covered by the Bill as it was. It is made clear that where a motorist parks his car in front of a meter the requirement that he must pay the charge covers not only his inserting the appropriate coin in the meter but also the doing of anything which is necessary to make the mechanism of the meter start working. Parking meters are of two kinds. Some of them are so constructed that the mere insertion of a coin will start the mechanism going. There are others which start working only if, in addition to the coin being inserted, a handle is pulled or turned.
It is also provided that proof of the presence of a car in a parking space in front of a meter which is showing the time-expired indication is to be sufficient evidence that the proper charge payable on the leaving of the vehicle was paid and that the time for which that charge was paid has expired unless the contrary is proved and subject to the case not being one of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of the new subsection. This raises a presumption which will accord with what are most likely to be the facts where there is a car in front of a meter showing the time-expired indication, because in the vast majority of cases that will mean that the motorist has left his car there for


a longer period than the time for which he has paid. If, however, he shows that this presumption does not accord with the facts—for example, by proving that he had left the car there for only half an hour—this presumption will be rebutted.
The presence of a car in front of a meter which shows the time-expired indication will in the majority of cases mean that the motorist has outstayed the period for which he paid, but there will be some cases where the explanation will be that the car was left in front of the meter without any payment being made at all. This could particularly easily happen in cases of those meters where the insertion of the coin of itself does not start the box of tricks working but where it is necessary for a handle to be turned. Or he may have left his car in front of a meter while it was still recording the time paid for by a previous motorist who had removed his car before his hour or two hours of paid-for time had come to an end. The second motorist may think he could leave his car there for some time, and may come back to find that the buckshee period has come to an end sooner than he expected.
In such cases as these the presumption provided for in paragraph (b) of the new subsection will not be appropriate. On the other hand, as no one may have seen the motorist leave his car and go away without paying, it is necessary to raise the presumption that the motorist did not pay the appropriate charge, leaving it to him, if he can, to show there is some other explanation for his car being in front of a meter showing the time-expired indication though it has not been there long enough to make the excess charge payable.
I am sorry that we have to have these somewhat technical adjustments. The necessity arises from the fact that there will be a considerable variety of meters which will meet the general requirements, some of which we have seen in operation in other countries. It is only when we have got down to the actual details of working this out that we have found it necessary to provide for rather easily overlooked cases of this kind.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am sure that the House will accept the Amendment, but it seems rather absurd that these details have to be brought to us at this late stage. The Bill has been in course of preparation

for over twenty months and it is only now, apparently, that the Ministry has discovered that it is necessary for some of these meters to have a lever and that it has not provided for the levers to be pulled.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 43, after "prescribed" insert:
and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating the apparatus.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment refers only to the handle which one has to pull. I hope that the House will accept it.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 45, leave out from "been" to second "paid" and insert:
duly paid or not to have been duly".

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This deals only with where one puts the coin in.

Clause 17.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REGULATION OF PARKING PLACES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 42, leave out from "provision" to end of line 44, and insert:
for determining by or under the order the positions in which vehicles left in a parking place shall stand in, and the manner in which such vehicles shall be driven into or out of, the parking place, may prohibit or restrict the waiting in a parking place, whether in the said positions or elsewhere, of other vehicles, and may contain provision for determining as aforesaid the positions in which other vehicles permitted by the order to wait in the parking place, or to wait there for any purpose specified in the order, shall wait there.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is intended to bring out more clearly than the Bill does at present that a parking place order may contain not only provisions about places where vehicles may be parked, but also provisions affecting other parts of the parking place and either prohibiting other vehicles from waiting there or allowing vehicles to wait there. Thus, if the inside of a square is set apart for


the parking of vehicles in front of meters, it will probably be necessary to restrict vehicles from waiting on the outside of the square and thereby parking free. Similarly, it will probably be necessary to provide loading bays at intervals where parking meters are set up so that vehicles can load and unload goods there. In such a case goods vehicles must be allowed to wait in these bays and other vehicles prohibited from being left there.
I heard the criticism just made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and he might feel tempted to make the same criticism against this Amendment, but this is the kind of provision the need for which becomes apparent only when one gets down, as the Samuels Committee is doing at present, to trying to work out exactly what areas can be used for parking purposes and exactly how it will be necessary to arrange for commercial vehicles to be able to operate in the same areas. In matters of this kind it is only when we get down to the actual details in practice that we realise all the things for which it is necessary to provide.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I refrain from making a similar protest this time, but I must point out that in Committee we drew the Minister's attention to the importance of providing these loading bays. It was made clear during our deliberations that it was essential that where we provide for these parks where payment has to be made there should be ample provision for loading and unloading goods and for the protection of others concerned, such as doctors, whom we hope the Minister will consider to be exempted from paying when they visit houses or areas outside which there are parking meters.
It has also been suggested that there are occasions where exemption should be granted to disabled persons driving cars provided by the Ministry or persons driving invalid carriages. I hope the provision will cover them, or, if not, some other provision in the Bill does, so that they will be cared for.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I want to put on record how grateful a number of us will be for the Amendment. I think it was I who in Standing Committee drew attention to the question of loading bays and mentioned the system which operates

in some German towns, which I imagine is in some ways similar to this.

10.30 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 38, leave out from "order" to "and" in line 39.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is simply to authorise the removal from a parking place of a vehicle which has been left in the parking place beyond the period covered by the initial charge and the excess charge. Although the Bill deals with this, it was felt in another place that there was some slight doubt due to the words:
…as to the time for which vehicles may be left there….
Therefore, it is proposed to remove those words to leave it beyond doubt that a vehicle can be removed from a parking place once the period covered by the initial charge and the excess charge has expired.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? Is it the intention that, if the vehicles for which the excess charge has been paid remain in the parking place, they will be removed? By whom will they be removed, and where will they be taken? This was touched on during the Report stage but it was never quite clear what was at the back of the Minister's mind. Perhaps the Minister has clarified the position for himself and can help us to clarify our minds.

Mr. Watkinson: One of the things that arose was that, in the case of the loading bay provision, which we are all agreed is a good thing, it may be that an extremely careless or thoughtless motorist would leave his car in the bay or abutting on it. There again, we need power for the local authority to take the car away in the same way as the police will have power to take away a car which is causing serious obstruction in the street. I am advised that the local authority will tow it away in the same way as the police would, and the motorist will be advised where he can recover it, possibly on payment of a charge.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I thought the Minister was referring in the first place to removing cars for which the excess


charge had been paid but which remained in the car park. Now he refers to a car being in a certain place where it is causing obstruction.

Mr. Watkinson: It is the same in both cases.

Clause 18.—(OFFENCES RELATING TO PARKING PLACES.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 18, line 12, leave out "to pay when it is due" and insert "duly to pay".

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 23, at end insert:
(2) In relation to an offence under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection of leaving a vehicle for longer after the excess charge has been incurred than the time prescribed under subsection (5) of the last foregoing section, or failing duly to pay any charge payable under section sixteen of this Act, the reference in the said paragraph (a) to the driver of a vehicle shall be construed as references to the person driving the vehicle at the time it was left in the parking place.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment again to paragraph (a) of Clause 18 (1) to make clear that the reference in the paragraph to the driver of the vehicle is always to be construed as reference to the person who was driving the vehicle at the time it was left in the parking place.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 18, line 34, after "been" insert "duly".

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 40, at end insert:
(5) Where in any proceedings for an offence under this section of failing to pay an excess charge it is not proved that the excess charge had become due, but is proved that the initial charge has not been paid, the defendant may be convicted of an offence under this section of failing to pay the initial charge.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment meets the situation which might arise where a driver is prosecuted for failing to pay the excess charge and it turns out on the facts that, although his car was found standing in front of a meter which showed the time-expired indication, he had left it there for less than the minimum period for which such payment was due and that what had happened was that he either

failed to make the proper payment and start the mechanism of the meter working or left the car in front of a meter which was still recording the time paid for by a previous motorist. I think I have got that wrong—

Mr. Ernest Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has read that once.

An Hon. Member: The right hon. Gentleman is in front of the wrong meter.

Mr. Molson: In each case, although his car was found there, he had left it there for less than the minimum period for which such payment is due and what had happened was that he had either failed to make the proper payment and start the mechanism of the meter working, or he had left the car in front of a meter which was still recording the time paid for by a previous motorist and did not insert any coin in the meter. In each case he will have committed an offence, but the true facts may not be discovered until a summons has been issued against him for not paying the excess charge. In such a case the offence charged will not have been committed, but, unless the motorist has some other explanation altogether, he should be convicted of the offence which he will in fact have committed. This Amendment will enable the court to do this.

Clause 19.—(PARKING PLACES: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 19, line 18, leave out "payments made out of" and insert "amounts charged to"

In line 33, at end insert
and the Common Council of the City of London".

In line 35, after "references" insert "respectively"

In line 35, at end insert
and the general rate of the City".

In line 36, at beginning insert
In this section the expression.

Clause 20.—(PARKING PLACES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 7, after "instrument" insert:
(4) An order under subsection (7) or (8) of section seventeen of this Act shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.


(5) A statutory instrument embodying any order under the provisions of this Act relating to parking places other than subsections (7) and (8) of section seventeen of this Act shall be".

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has the effect of providing that where the Minister, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, makes an order under subsection (7) or subsection (8) as the case may be, extending the parking place provisions of the Bill to areas outside London, such an order shall not have effect until it has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.
This change in the Bill was made in accordance with the undertaking given by my noble Friend Lord Selkirk in another place. During the Committee stage and on Report, there was pressure from both sides of the House to apply affirmative Resolution procedure to various provisions of the Bill, notably those relating to vehicle testing and parking places. So far as vehicle testing was concerned, we gave an undertaking to produce a White Paper fully explaining the details of the scheme, and that was regarded as being reasonably satisfactory. It was also thought desirable to meet the wishes of the House regarding affirmative Resolution procedure in one particular type of order concerning parking places.
In this Amendment the affirmative Resolution procedure has been conceded regarding orders made by the Minister or the Secretary of State applying the parking place provisions of the Bill to areas outside London. In other words, both Houses will be asked to approve a series of orders in which the Minister or the Secretary of State will designate particular places—Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow—in which the provisions of Clause 15 (1) will apply. That means that it will be open to Birmingham or any other local authority to submit for confirmation orders designating parking places in those areas. In such cases, where the local authority is submitting a scheme, there will not be an affirmative Resolution, but such an order will be subject to Prayer in this House. I hope that that will be regarded in this House, as it was in another place, as a reasonable compromise to meet the opinions expressed.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We welcome this provision, which will enable both Houses of Parliament to have an opportunity of debating the extensions of these parking regulations outside London, where the Minister makes a scheme. So far as local authorities are concerned, we shall retain the negative procedure. That seems to me to cover the case.

New Clause E.—(CHARGES FOR PARKING VEHICLES IN ROYAL PARKS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 8, at end insert:
Regulations under section two of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926, may make provision for imposing and recovering charges for the leaving of vehicles, or vehicles of any class or description, in any park to which that Act applies; and regulations made by virtue of this section may make, as respects charges and penalties recoverable under the regulations, provision corresponding with the provisions of subsection (3) of section eighteen of this Act.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has power to make regulations under Section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926, for securing the proper management of the Royal Parks. Under those regulations my right hon. Friend has appointed certain areas in St. James's, Green and Hyde Parks to be used as car parks. These areas were announced by my right hon. Friend in this House on 14th December, 1954. There is at present no charge for parking in these appointed places, and the Minister has no power to make a charge.
Clauses 15 to 20 of the Bill have, with general consent, given power to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to make charges for parking cars in designated parts of the highway, and the Amendment is designed to give to the Minister of Works a similar power to make a charge for parking, should he wish to do so, in the Royal Parks. The acceptance of this Clause in no way implies that parking facilities in the Royal Parks are to be extended. Any revenue collected may be expected to go to appropriations in aid of the Ministry's Vote for the Royal Parks.
There are two main arguments in favour of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works feels that he should have the same power of making


charges for parking in the Royal Parks as my right hon. Friend and local authorities will have under the Bill for allowing parking on the Queen's highway. From a Departmental point of view we also are anxious to see the Amendment carried. If we are trying to restrict parking in parts of London adjoining the Royal Parks, and are making charges for parking there, it may very well prove to be extremely inconvenient to us if, quite nearby, there is an opportunity for people to park free, gratis and for nothing in the Royal Parks.
It is obviously desirable that the two Ministers who are concerned with traffic and with parking should enjoy the same powers—my right hon. Friend and the local authorities on the highway and the Minister of Works in the Royal Parks.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Can my right hon. Friend inform us whether the parking charges are to be levied by way of parking meters or by attendants? I was not quite sure from his explanation.

Mr. Molson: No provision is made with regard to that. All that is provided for in the Amendment is that it would become legal for the Minister of Works to make charges. It is a matter for consideration in the future as to how that should be done. Once power is obtained to make a charge, it would be competent for the Minister of Works to do it, either by a parking meter or by other means.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: This principle is completely vicious, and surely the Minister is rather confused when he suggests that he should give the Minister of Works similar powers to the Minister of Transport. I understood that the exercise of these parking charges was, in effect, to go back to the general provision of making parking places and rather improving the amenities for motorists. But that sort of thing will not apply in the Royal Parks. We are told that if any revenues come here they are going back into the appropriation account of the Minister of Works and, in effect, for a completely different purpose.
Therefore, I hope that the Royal Parks will be open for occasional parking. Our problem in this Bill has not been so much to provide revenue but to get over the evil of car parking in London. I do not know whether the Minister quite

appreciates the difficulty that we are up against. For some time past he has had the advantage, quite rightly, of the provision of an official car, but when one tries to get around London and to leave a car somewhere it is extraordinarily difficult. If, for instance, one goes anywhere around Grosvenor Square, to the American Embassy, unless one is carrying the Stars and Stripes on the car one cannot get a parking place anywhere. Of course, I do not say that if one asks for Grosvenor Square no policeman knows where it is, but if one asks for the 49th State or the Eisenhower Flats they know where it is. But I should have thought that we want to leave as many occasional parking places as we can. It would seem rather better that one should keep traffic moving, but to create paid parking places in the Royal Parks seems a contradiction in terms of the provisions in this Bill for parking places. We think that this is a distortion of the legislation that the Minister is bringing forward.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: The Minister in referring to this Clause said that one of the justifications given for its support was in reference to the setting up of a kind of equation between the Minister of Transport, the Royal Parks and the local authorities. It is not quite the same equation to invoke the local authorities as an argument in support of this Clause. The fairest argument would be if one had referred to the London County Council, because the L.C.C. is responsible for many more parks than is the Ministry of Works. I want to ask the Minister what is to happen if this Clause is passed. If we are to have parking charges imposed on cars parked in the Royal Parks, does that mean that the L.C.C. can then come to the Minister, responsible as it is for so many parks in London, and ask whether the Minister would agree on the same point of equation, giving the L.C.C. the same rights to obtain revenue from parking meters as is now suggested in respect of the Royal Parks and the Minister of Works?

Mr. Watkinson: I should like to explain, because I know that both hon. Gentlemen took a great interest in this Bill in Committee. This is purely to do one thing only. The Royal Parks, for example, St. James's Park, will be in an area which will be heavily metered. It


was felt that it would be quite wrong to leave the Minister of Works with no sanction at all, because obviously the density of people then trying to park in the Royal Parks would be such as to present an enormous problem. They would become a sort of overflow area for everywhere else. There is no intention of restricting parking in the Royal Parks, indeed, I hope more people will be able to park there. On the point about the L.C.C., if they want to come forward and make some similar arrangements, I personally should welcome them, and there would be no difficulty as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister has made matters worse. He has said that, far from restricting parking in the Royal Parks, he wants to extend it and to make more parking space available in them. He has also said that if the London County Council puts forward similar schemes for its parks he will, of course, consider them favourably.
I am opposed to parking in the Royal Parks, as I have been from the very beginning. These parks have been provided as amenities for London, and London is proud of its parks. I doubt whether there is another metropolitan city which has such a vast area of open spaces as has London. From where I live in Kensington I can walk to this House through Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James's Park without crossing any highway except at Hyde Park Corner.
I object to this gradual encroachment on the amenities of London by allowing parking in the Royal Parks. I am afraid that if this power is given to the Minister parking will be extended. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not intend that parking meters shall be erected in the park.

Mr. Watkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: At least we have that guarantee. But it is no use saying that a parking charge is only going to be made in order to facilitate the parking meters in the immediate neighbourhood. That may be so, but once this power is in the hands of the Minister of Works it may well be that under another Minister of Works or another Minister of Transport we shall see an extension of parking in

the Royal Parks for the purpose of collecting revenue from them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may urge the Minister of Works to reduce his expenditure on these amenities, and the Minister of Works, in order to increase his appropriation in aid, might then increase the charges or extend the parking facilities.
One can visualise large areas of Hyde Park being turned over to car parks, not only for the sake of raising money, but in order to facilitate parking in the centre of London. Once we allow charges to be made, we are opening the door very dangerously. We must resist the threat to these amenities. I very much regret that this step has been taken.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, this is in contradiction to the reason given for the charges being made elsewhere. The only reason why throughout our discussions on the Bill we supported parking meters was because the revenue from them was to be used for the provision of off-street parking. That is not the case here. The money will go to the Ministry of Works and will not be used for the provision of additional parks.
The argument used by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary was that this innovation was for the purpose of facilitating parking in the neighbourhood. But, obviously, every motorist would prefer to park freely in the Royal Parks than pay at a parking meter. I would point out to the Minister that every available space in the Royal Parks is at present occupied all day long, so that this arrangement will not alter the situation in any way.
If one drives along Birdcage Walk, or wherever parking is allowed today, it is very rarely indeed that one can find a space in which to park. Therefore, I do not see how this proposal is going to help if the spaces are already occupied, unless, of course, the Minister's answer is that he is going to insist on short-term parking. In that case we shall have attendants trying to fix a period of time which is simply not observed.
I very much regret that this proposal was introduced in another place. It is a matter of principle which should have been foreseen and we in this House should have been given an opportunity of discussing it earlier, and, possibly, of amending it.
I do not think that the new Clause is necessary. I think that it is an unfortunate Clause, and a dangerous one. I hope that the Minister—I see that he is trying to intervene—will give an undertaking, such as was given in another place, that he has no intention of imposing charges at the present time. I regret that he is taking the power to do so, but, even so. I hope that he will not use it.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words, and I do apologise for not saying them before. I cannot, of course, commit the Minister of Works. Indeed, if he wants to do this he has to come forward with a regulation which has to lie in front of the House for 40 days, during which time it may be prayed against. I can see the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman, but I do think there is something in the idea that if there are metered streets around St. James's Park, for instance, and there is the knowledge that within the Park there is free parking, it may put those in charge of the Park in serious difficulties. There is no obligation under the Clause for the Minister of Works to do anything, but, if he does anything, he must bring a regulation to the House. This is purely a precautionary measure in order that if the Minister of Works does find that his Parks are being completely swamped he can take action. But he certainly cannot take action without coming to the House.

Captain Duncan: I think that someone on this side should make a protest against the idea of parking meters in the Royal Parks—

Mr. Watkinson: I do not want to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but I' have just said that there cannot be any question of parking meters in the Royal Parks.

Captain Duncan: That is not what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said. He said that it was up to the Minister of Works to produce regulations on the subject. I do not want to cast doubts on the word of my right hon. Friend, but if it is perfectly clear that, on a general amenity ground, there will not be parking meters in the Royal Parks, I will leave the matter there.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that there is any difference between my right hon. Friend and myself. I have only recently had the opportunity of discussing this with the Minister of Works, and I

know that he is entirely opposed to the idea of parking meters in the Royal Parks, and so am I.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 21.—(PENALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 8, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert:
the powers conferred by subsection (2)".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause F. Under Section 46 of the 1930 Act, as it stands, the maximum penalties for the contravention of an Order made under that Section are a fine of £5 for the first offence and of £10 for the second or subsequent offence. Clause 21 (1) of the Bill provides that a fine imposed for contravention of an Order under Section 46 (1) may be of an amount not exceeding £20 for the first conviction and of £50 for a subsequent offence. Subsection 46 (1) is, however, to be repealed by the new Clause F, and Orders will, in future, be made only under Section 46 (2) of the 1930 Act.
In these circumstances, a change in Clause 21 (1) was necessary, but it was felt that there was no real ground for distinguishing between Orders made under Section 46 and that the maximum penalties for offences against all such Orders should be the same. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to apply the new maxima of £20 for the first offence and of £50 for subsequent offences to the contravention of all Orders under Section 46.

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 13, at end insert:
(2) In subsection (1) of section six of the Act of 1930 (which provides for disqualifications for holding a licence, and for the endorsement of licences, on conviction of criminal offences in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, other than offences under Part IV of that Act) for the reference to any such offence as aforesaid there shall be substituted a reference to the offences specified in the Schedule (Offences in respect of which Disqualification or Endorsement may be ordered) to this Act.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by the said subsection (1), so much of the Act of 1930 as provides that a person convicted of an offence shall be, or shall be


ordered to be, disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence shall not apply to a person convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or inciting to, the commission of the offence.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, I think, may be found helpful by courts and all who have to administer the criminal law relating to the driving of motor vehicles. It should really be read in conjunction with the new Schedule A, which is the substance behind it. The Amendment is designed to remove doubts which now exist, and, which might well be increased, by certain changes which the Bill is making as to what the offences are for which the court can exercise its discretionary powers under Section 6 (1) of the 1930 Act, of disqualifying the convicted person from driving and ordering his licence to be endorsed. At the moment the exercise of these powers depends upon the question whether the offence is a criminal offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle. The Amendment, I would stress, will in no way affect the provisions of any Section which makes the disqualification for a particular offence compulsory either by making it an automatic consequence of the conviction or by requiring the court to order disqualification.
11.0 p.m.
The new subsection (3) has been added to remove doubts which have been expressed about the disqualification of persons convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of offences which are offences in respect of which disqualification is compulsory. The short answer is that such a person is not subject to compulsory disqualification merely because the provision of the law that creates that offence makes disqualification for that offence compulsory upon conviction. It is, however, provided that this is to be without prejudice to the power of the court under Section 6 (1) to order the aider or abettor to be disqualified.
I hope that the House will feel willing to welcome this Amendment which is, I think, a clarification and which, as I began by saying, may be of assistance to the courts and indeed to all who have

to administer justice in relation to motoring offences.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have been trying to reconcile this Amendment with the new Schedule "A"—(Offences in respect of which disqualification or endorsement may be ordered) I thought I understood it until one of my hon. Friends with great knowledge of this matter told me that parking offences now fall under disqualification, which may cause the licence to be endorsed. Am I right in assuming that persistent parking offences are not the sort of offences for which one may have one's licence endorsed?

Mr. Page: This Amendment is extremely beneficial, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for including in this an Amendment which I moved in Committee but which I was then told was quite unnecessary. It related to disqualifications and endorsements for pedestrian crossing offences by drivers. I see that those are now included in the Schedule.
The question I want to ask is whether any existing endorseable offences are omitted. Is this merely a codification of the present law, or are any of those offences for which endorsement or disqualification can be imposed omitted from this Schedule? My hon. Friend assured us that this does not alter the case of compulsory endorsement or compulsory disqualification, but I want to know whether it makes any other alteration.

Mr. George Isaacs: I think that this Schedule—which I have heard referred to as a "skedule" by one of my hon. Friends but which I believe is called a "schedule"—will be very useful to those who have to administer this Bill. It will make it unnecessary to wade through all the different Clauses to find out what one can and cannot do.
I should like to mention a matter to which an hon. Member opposite referred. I understand that this does not remove any existing powers of disqualification, but I fancy that it has added one or two which otherwise were not completely covered. The fact that this matter is covered in the Schedule will be of great assistance to those who have to administer this Measure.

Mr. Deedes: First, may I say that parking offences are not in the Schedule and do not lead to disqualification? I am


sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) feels that we have stolen a march on him, but I can assure him that this is a codification designed for clarification and to assist those who are concerned with the administration of justice.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 21, line 19, at end insert:
committed in respect of motor vehicles".

Clause 26.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO PRODUCTION AND SURRENDER OF DRIVING LICENCES, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 38, leave out from "him" to end of line 44.

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient if I speak about this Amendment and the next Amendment, in line 40, as the first is consequential on the second. The position is that at present the police can only compel a person to produce his or her driving licence or certificate of insurance when that person is actually driving a motor vehicle on the road. Clause 26 (4) extends the power of the police so that they will be able to require driving licences and insurance certificates and test certificates to be produced by the class of persons described in it; but, as Clause 26 stands at the moment, the power of the police to seize or dispose of the documents concerned would not apply when they are produced by the class of persons described in subsection 4. This Amendment fills in that gap.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 23, line 40, at end insert:
(5) Subsection (4) of section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the seizure and disposal of documents in relation to which an offence has been committed under that section) shall apply in relation to a licence, certificate or other document produced in pursuance of this section as it applies in relation to documents produced in pursuance of the provisions of that Act.

Clause 27.—(EXTENSION OF S. 113 (3) OF ACT OF 1930.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 3, leave out "references" and insert:
subsection (2) of section forty-one of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 (which provides for proof, in proceedings for certain traffic offences,

of admissions as to the identity of the driver or owner of a vehicle) shall apply to any offence to which the said subsection (3) applies; and in the case of any offence under the provisions of this Act relating to parking places the power conferred by the said subsection (3) to require information shall be exercisable either by or on behalf of the chief officer of police or, in writing, by or on behalf of the local authority for the parking place in question.
(2) References".

Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment does two things. In the first place, it makes it clear that the power of the police under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, to prove the identity of the owner, or the driver of a vehicle by means of a certificate applies to offences against the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, in the first place, to the parking place provisions of this Bill in the second place, and to the London traffic regulations in the third place.
There is a useful provision in the 1948 Criminal Justice Act whereby a certificate can be signed by a constable proving the ownership, or proving the identity of a driver, of a vehicle, thereby saving a good deal of police time by releasing officers from courts. The Amendment rules that this shall apply to lighting offences and parking place offences under the London traffic regulations.
The second thing with which this Amendment is concerned deals with the identity of an owner or driver in the parking place provisions only. This part of the Amendment extends the power of local authorities so far as parking place offences are concerned, because the duty of enforcement will fall, primarily, on the local authorities—a power given under Clause 18 (5.) If an excess charge is incurred but the name and particulars of the driver are not known, he will have to be traced through the owner of the vehicle—who can be traced through the registration number and unless local authorities are given the power to require this information from the owner they would have to get the assistance of the police. Since it is desired, so far as is possible, to reduce the additional burdens which are being put on the police, power is being given to the local authorities to get this information for themselves.
I should add that the power can only be exercised, as is made clear, by or on behalf of the local authority in writing. There was strong feeling on this matter in another place, and these words were inserted to meet the feelings of those who were against the idea of a parking meter attendant being able there and then to demand from a driver his name and address when he suspected the driver of having committed an offence. It is obvious that such a situation might give rise to difficulties which it is desired to avoid.
What is envisaged is that a local authority which wants to follow up the non-payment of an excess charge will write to the owner asking for the name and address of the driver of the vehicle at the material time. If the owner does not answer, the local authority will send somebody to see him. It may be an officer of the local authority or perhaps even a person normally employed as an attendant.
The person who is sent by the local authority will be armed with a further letter, asking for the required information, which he will give to the owner, who will be under an obligation to furnish the information to him. There is no question of drivers being cross-examined by parking meter attendants when they go to collect their cars from the parking place. I hope that the House may be satisfied by this explanation.

New Clause F.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 46 OF ACT OF 1930.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 5, at end insert new Clause F:
—(1) The powers conferred by subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (which authorises the making of orders regulating traffic on roads) shall be exercisable as respects any road where it appears to the council or Minister exercising the power that it is expedient so to do—

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road, or
(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or
(c) for facilitating the passage of vehicular traffic on the road or any other road, or
(d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or the use thereof by such traffic in a manner which,

is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or
(e) without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing paragraph, for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot.
and subsection (1) of the said section forty-six (which makes provision for prohibiting or restricting the driving of vehicles in the interests of safety) shall cease to have effect; but the repeal of that subsection shall not affect any order in force at the coming into operation of this section, and any such order so far as made, or having effect as if made, under the said subsection (1) shall have effect as if made under subsection (2) of the said section forty-six by virtue of this section.
(2) The provision which may be made by order under the said subsection (2) shall be any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by vehicular traffic or by such traffic of any class or description specified in the order, either generally or subject to exceptions so specified, and either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified, and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, any provision—

(a) requiring such traffic to proceed in a specified direction or prohibit its so proceeding,
(b) specifying the part of the carriageway to be used by such traffic proceeding in a specified direction,
(c) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles,
(d) prohibiting the use of roads by through traffic,
(e) prohibiting or restricting overtaking,
(f) regulating the speed of vehicles.
Provided that no prohibition or restriction on waiting imposed under the powers conferred by the said subsection (2) shall apply to any stage carriage or express carriage.
(3) An order made in the exercise of the said powers by any council to which the said section forty-six applies which contains no provision other than provision—

(a) imposing any such requirement, prohibition or restriction as is specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the last foregoing subsection, or
(b) prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways by bicycles and tricycles, or
(c) revoking or varying any such requirement, prohibition or restriction,
shall not require confirmation by the Minister except where the next following subsection has effect:
Provided that—

(i) this subsection shall not apply to any trunk road; and
(ii) where before the coming into operation of this section an order has been submitted to the Minister for confirmation but


the Minister has neither confirmed the order nor determined not to confirm it, the order may be proceeded with as if this subsection had not been passed.
(4) Where the Minister revokes, varies or amends an order made by virtue of the last foregoing subsection relating to any length of road, any order imposing or varying, as respects that length of road, any such requirement, prohibition or restriction as is specified in that subsection and made within twelve months after the revocation, variation or amendment by the Minister shall be subject to confirmation by the Minister to the like extent as if the last foregoing subsection had not been passed.
(5) The following provisions shall have effect as respects the proviso to subsection (2) of the said section forty-six (under which no order may be made with respect to a road which would have the effect of preventing reasonable access for vehicles of any class or description to premises on or adjacent to the road):—

(a) for the purposes of the application of the said proviso to vehicles of any class or description premises shall be treated as adjacent to a road, whatever their distance therefrom, if they are accessible for vehicles of that class or description from, and only from, that road;
(b) the said proviso shall not have effect in relation to an order confirmed or made by the Minister in so far as the authority making the order is satisfied that, for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road to which the order relates or any other road, or for preventing damage to the road or buildings on or near it, it is requisite that the said proviso should not apply, and it is stated in the order that the said authority is satisfied as aforesaid;
(c) a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours.
(6) In subsection (8) of the said section forty-six (which specifies the councils to which that section applies) the reference to urban districts shall (but subject to subsection (7) of this section) include, and be deemed always to have included, a reference to boroughs, not being county boroughs.
(7) The power conferred by subsection (6) of section twenty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, of making regulations for prescribing procedure shall include power to make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by a council of an order which by reason of subsection (3) of this section does not require confirmation and the holding of enquiries in connection therewith.
(8) The said section forty-six, and subsections (4) to (6) of the said section twenty-nine, shall cease to apply as respects the London Traffic Area, without prejudice, however, to any order made, or having effect as if made, thereunder before the coming into operation of this section, and any such order

in so far as it relates to the London Traffic Area may be varied or revoked by regulations under section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924.
(9) In subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 for the words from 'for any' to 'of traffic' there shall be substituted the words 'containing any such provision as is specified in subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956', and in subsection (4) of section twenty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 for the words from 'restricting' to '1930' there shall be substituted the words 'under subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which'.
(10) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to the Minister there shall be substituted references to the Secretary of State.

Read a Second time.

Mr. G. Wilson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
and
(iii) no order imposing any requirement, prohibition or restriction specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the last foregoing subsection shall be made in respect of any road used by stage carriages or express carriages without the consent in writing of the appropriate Traffic Commissioners.
I do not propose to detain the House long on this Amendment, which I have put down at the suggestion of two of the trade organisations concerned with bus services which were rather anxious to get on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT an explanation from the Minister on a point which, they felt, had not been fully explained in another place.
As hon. Members will be aware, before 1930 buses were operated subject to a whole host of licensing authorities, some 1,300 in number, among different local authorities. It was as a result of the difficulties which arose from that situation that in 1930 the Road Traffic Act was passed which greatly reduced the number of licensing authorities, which are now concentrated in some eleven traffic areas.
In the 1930 Act, however, Section 46 (2) enabled local authorities in certain prescribed circumstances to make regulations, subject to confirmation by the Minister, affecting traffic on roads which would be used by buses. The new Clause modifies the provisions of that Section and to some extent restores the powers of local authorities to those which they held before 1930 by enabling them in


certain circumstances to make regulations without the confirmation of the Minister.
When the Clause was introduced in another place, it caused apprehension amongst those concerned with these services and they were somewhat worried about it. They were quite prepared to leave this matter in the hands of the licensing authorities because over a period of years a great body of experience has been built up, and everybody knows the kind of line which is likely to be taken by licensing authorities in this matter. Those concerned, however, were not quite so sure what would be the position with regard to local authorities who had not had the same experience and who might in some cases not act in quite such a reasonable manner.
11.15 p.m.
It will be appreciated that while unreasonable regulations may cause nuisance and annoyance to a private motorist, or may cause some inconvenience to somebody running a lorry service, in practice, if the regulations are found to be unsatisfactory, the matter can probably be put right after some time and no serious damage will be done to the road users; but that is not quite the same in the case of a bus company. A bus company depends for its good will upon being able to pick up and set down passengers on roads which the passengers want to use. If once the existing pattern of use
is disturbed in an unreasonable way, it is much more difficult to put matters right for a bus company. Therefore, bus companies were much more apprehensive about this matter than were other road users.
Some of the apprehension has been met already by Amendments made in another place in subsection (2) of the Lords new Clause, but there remain the restrictions, which do not appear to be covered, in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection. Unless my Amendment to the Lords Amendment is made, it would seem, as the Clause is at present drafted, that a local authority could restrict the use of roads, one-way streets, and so on, without any confirmation by the Minister, and without taking notice of the opinion of the licensing authorities. That would be a very unsatisfactory position, and that is why I move the Amendment to the

Lords Amendment, to provide that at least the written consent of the licensing commissioners should be obtained.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope that I shall be able quite shortly to deal with both the Lords Amendment and the Amendment proposed to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson.) The position is this. In case the House should think this is something quite new in the Bill—

Mr. Ernest Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is discussing the Lords Amendment now, is he not?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. Yes, I am speaking of the new Clause.
I want the House to remember that in Committee on the Bill certain Amendments were put down of which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said we could not go forward with them then: but he said that we would consider them with a view to introducing Amendments in another place. We are now implementing a promise.
My hon. Friend feels anxious about what we are doing in some respects. I have power under subsection (7) of the Clause to make regulations governing the procedure to be adopted by local authorities about orders which they make on their own initiative, and I shall carefully look at them, and I shall certainly insist on adequate public notice being given, and of full opportunity being given for objections to be lodged, etc., so that associations representing bus operators and so on may have a proper chance to make their case. I still retain power to revoke those orders, and my revocation of orders made by local authorities on their own initiative can be brought into action quickly.
My noble Friend in another place said that I would treat local authorities as responsible bodies, and of course I shall, but I want to emphasise that his remarks were intended to be only a general statement of future policy, and in no way prejudice my powers under the new provisions to act, if necessary. I believe that his statement caused some alarm amongst bus companies and other interested parties. It in no way alters my view that


I have power to revoke, and will use it if necessary. It in no way alters my power to see that right regulations are made, and, of course, it in no way alters the fact that the traffic commissioners have to come into the matter. There are adequate safeguards, and I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. G. Wilson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the licensing commissioners. Do I understand that there will be consultations with them and that that will be made clear in the regulations?

Mr. Watkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The appearance of this new Clause confirms the protest which we on this side of the House have been making all evening. It is true that certain of its principles were introduced in Committee, but it is most regrettable that a new Clause of this kind, covering an important matter, should be brought forward at this late hour, when so few hon. Members are able to be present to give it adequate discussion.
The Clause writes into the Bill a completely new code of traffic requirements outside London, and transfers most important powers from the Minister to the local authorities. This devolution of responsibility from the centre to the municipalities meets with favour on this side of the House, provided that there is ample protection, as there is in this case. The Minister said that he has power of revocation. Presumably, where orders are made by the local authority he can revoke them if he so desires. I presume that is provided for in subsection (4) but I am not quite clear whether there will be a gap between the making of the orders by the local authority and the receipt of objections by the Minister.
Will the orders first come into operation and then, if he receives objections, the Minister will make an inquiry and then decide to revoke them? There are many matters about which we are not

clear. It would help to clarify them if the House were disposed to debate them.
Again I am not clear, but it is probably the case that the Minister cannot take any initiative now concerning the local authorities. It is left entirely to them to take the initiative, and even if the Minister thought that some action should be taken he is not in a position to take it. I am not necessarily criticising that, but I want the position to be made quite clear. Is there provision for public inquiries in relation to regulations made by local authorities?
The Clause provides that the Minister, will prescribe the manner in which the local authorities will make the regulations. I trust, therefore, that the regulations will provide for objections to be made to the local authorities and for those objections to be heard at a public inquiry, if necessary. I ask only that these protections, which were provided when the Minister had the power, should be preserved when the local authorities have it.
I repeat, with these few queries, that the general principle of the Clause is correct. Some of its features have received substantial but misplaced criticism outside the House. The main criticism has been levelled against loading and unloading. There is a limit that in every twenty-four hours there can be only six hours of restriction on loading and unloading. I should have thought that any local authority, quite clearly aware of local conditions and desires, would be able to arrange for the six hours to be at reasonable periods when they would least interfere with business. Efficient firms should be able to fix delivery times in accordance with the provisions made. I believe the most reasonable firms take the view that as long as they know the hours they can adjust the deliveries accordingly. Certainly with the increasing congestion which is so evident in those areas where there is heavy loading and unloading there has to be some restriction if we are to have a free flow of traffic.
With those observations, I would add only that my hon. Friends and I support the new Clause.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I think that my right hon. Friend ought to know, and it ought to be put on record, that there is a good deal of opposition to the Clause among traders. They are rather alarmed


that local authorities can impose waiting bans or loading bans up to about six hours. Traders would also prefer that the Minister should conduct the local inquiries instead of the local authorities. They have a feeling that the Minister might have to over-rule a number of local authorities after bans have been imposed. The Earl of Selkirk said in another place that if the ban extended beyond three hours the Minister might have to review it. I do not see that written into the Measure.
In face of these doubts about the Clause, I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could say a little more about it.

Mr. C. Pannell: I hope that the Minister will not feel nervous, because of words used in another place, about treating local authorities as responsible bodies. I very much deprecate Members of Parliament considering themselves senior partners in public administration and local authorities the junior partners.
Take, for example, a great city like Leeds. Its local authority consist of 100 members who give a great deal of time voluntarily in the public service. We really must assume that they act in a disinterested way for what they consider to be the good of their citizens. There is a high degree of altruism in local Government.
I regard with disgust the representations which have been quoted. There is a
smugness on the part of trading bodies in assuming that the local chamber of commerce knows better than the city council does what is good for the city. It is better that local authorities should be able to be masters in their own cities, in the democratic sense, subject only to the over-riding will of the Minister when he feels that they have not acted in the public interest.
I should have thought that six hours was not too long. This morning I was at the junction of the Lewisham road with the road coming over Blackheath, by the "Marquess of Granby." There was one removal van there. If anyone could imagine the degree of chaos there at the time, he would see the case for the Clause.

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) put his finger on the spot when

he said that this has to be a sensible compromise between the local authorities and the Government, with the local authorities, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has said, playing their full and responsible part.
In answer to my hon. Friends who feel alarmed, I would say that the arrangement in the Clause is that the local authorities have full autonomy, with my over-riding check in case any of them—which I do not think is very likely—act in such a way as appears to be completely contrary to general policy. Therefore, it is a workable compromise, and in that sense I put it to the House.

New Clause G.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION DURING ROAD REPAIRS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: After the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause G:
(1) Where under section forty-seven of the Act of 1930 (which provides for traffic regulation in consequence of the execution of works) a highway authority make an order under subsection (1) of that section or issue a notice under subsection (6) of that section, the authority may by order make as respects any alternative road any such provision as is specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of this Act:
Provided that where the highway authority for the road as respects which the order or notice under the said section forty-seven is made or issued is not the highway authority for the alternative road, then—

(a) if the alternative road is a trunk road, the power to make orders conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable by the Minister on the application of the highway authority for the other road;
(b) in any other case, the order under this subsection shall not be made except with the consent of the highway authority for the alternative road.
(2) In connection with the making of an order under the last foregoing subsection the authority making the order shall publish the like notices within the like time, and in the like manner, as is required by subsection (2) of the said section forty-seven in the case of an order under that section:
Provided that the notice required by this subsection need not contain any description of alternative routes.
(3) Subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven (which limits the time for which orders under that section may continue in force without the approval of the Minister) shall apply to orders under subsection (1) of this section made by highway authorities other than the Minister, and subsection (7) of the said section forty-seven (which relates to offences) and subsection (9) of that section (which contains a


saving for tramcars and trolley vehicles) shall apply to orders under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The proviso to subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (under which no order is to be made which would have the effect of preventing reasonable access) shall apply in relation to orders under subsection (1) of this section as it applies in relation to orders under the said subsection (2), subject however to the provisions of subsection (4) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of this Act.
(5) In subsection (1) of the said section forty-seven for the reference to works being executed or proposed to be executed on a road there shall be substituted a reference to works being executed or proposed to be executed on or near a road.
(6) Subsection (8) of the said section forty-seven (which provides for an appeal to the Minister against restrictions and prohibitions imposed under that section) shall cease to have effect; but—

(a) subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven shall as respects any order to which it applies have effect with the substitution for the words "three months" of the words "six weeks";
(b) where the Minister has refused to approve the continuing in force of an order made under the said section forty-seven, then except with the approval of the Minister no subsequent order shall be made under that section as respects any length of road to which the previous order related unless at least three months have expired from the time when the previous order ceased to have effect:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any order under the said section forty-seven made before the coming into operation of this section.
(7) The maximum period for which a notice under subsection (6) of the said section forty-seven may continue in force shall be extended from seven days from the date of the notice to fourteen days therefrom.
(8) The provision which may be made by order under subsection (1) or notice under subsection (6) of the said section forty-seven shall be any such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of this Act.
(9) An order under subsection (1) or notice under subsection (6) of the said section forty-seven, or an order under subsection (1) of this section, may suspend any statutory provision of a description which could have been contained in the order or notice or, in the case of an order under subsection (1) of this section, any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930), and any such provision (other than one contained in the order or notice) shall have effect subject to the order or notice.
(10) In subsection (1) of this section the expression "alternative road", in relation to a road as respects which an order under subsection (1), or notice under subsection (6), of the said section forty-seven is made or issued,

means a road providing an alternative route for traffic diverted from the first mentioned road or from any other alternative road, or capable of providing such an alternative route apart from any statutory provision authorised by the last foregoing subsection to be suspended by an order under subsection (1) of this section.
(11) In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Minister there shall be substituted references to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to Section 47 of the 1930 Act. There is really very little controversy about it. We have had a good deal of experience now of the rules of law applying to local authorities when they temporarily close roads for purposes of repair. There have been powers of appeal to the Minister, but, as it is entirely temporary, the right of appeal has proved to be entirely nugatory, because by the time the appeal has reached the Minister the temporary repairs have been concluded and the road has been reopened. It is on the basis of the experience that we have had that we are introducing the Amendment.

Clause 28.—(TRAFFIC SIGNS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 24, line 9, after "requirements" insert "restrictions".

In line 13, after "requirements" insert "restrictions".

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 9, at end insert:
(7) In section forty-nine of the Act of 1930 (which makes it an offence to fail to conform to the indication given by certain traffic signs lawfully placed on or near roads) the words 'being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, and being' shall cease to have effect, but for the purposes of that section a traffic sign shall not be treated as having been lawfully placed unless either—

(a) the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement,
(b) the sign has been placed in the exercise of the powers conferred by section thirty-one of this Act, or
(c) it is expressly provided by the regulations under section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 prescribing the type of sign in question, or the authorisation under that section authorising the erection or retention of the


sign in question, that the said section forty-nine shall apply to signs of that type, or as the case may be, to that sign,
and where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the said prohibition, restriction or requirement.
(8) So much of subsection (2) of section one hundred and thirteen of the Act of 1930 as provides for imprisonment in the case of second or subsequent convictions shall not apply to convictions of offences under section forty-nine of that Act.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment makes three changes affecting Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That Section makes it an offence for a person driving or propelling a vehicle to fail to conform to the indication given by a traffic sign which is
a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic.
and which has been lawfully placed on or near a road under Section 48 of that Act.
The first change is the omission of the words which limit signs which are covered by Section 49. The first sign is
a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic.
It is thought that that would not cover a "No Parking" sign and some doubt has been expressed as to whether it would cover a speed limit sign. We wish to bring signs such as those clearly within the scope of those included in the Section.
This Amendment defines all cases of traffic signs placed on or near a road so as to impose a requirement the disregard of which is an offence under Section 49. The reason for doing that is to avoid any question arising whether proceedings should be taken under Section 49 for the disregard of a traffic sign which imposes a requirement not supported by a traffic order or regulation.
It will be appreciated that signs at street intersections and "Halt major road ahead" signs are placed there without any formal order.

Clause 29.—(EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC SCHEMES IN LONDON.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 25, line 31, leave out "by the Minister."

In page 26, line 4, leave out "twelve" and insert "six."

In line 19, leave out from "London" to end of line 20.

Clause 30.—(POWERS OF POLICE TO ERECT TRAFFIC SIGNS RELATING TO SPECIAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 26, line 25, leave out "by the Minister."

In line 26, leave out from "signs" to "vehicular" in line 27, and insert:
indicating prohibitions, restrictions or requirements relating to.

In line 30, leave out from "1839" to "under" in line 31.

Clause 31.—(TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR DEALING WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND DANGER.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 27, line 1, leave out "by the Minister."

In line 2, leave out from "signs" to "vehicular" in line 3, and insert:
indicating prohibitions, restrictions or requirements relating to.

New Clause H.—(LIGHTING-UP TIME.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 36, at end insert new Clause H:
For the purposes of the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, the expression 'the hours of darkness' shall mean the time between half-an-hour after sunset and half-an-hour before sunrise as well during the period of summer time as during the remainder of the year.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a matter of some substance, but I can explain it very briefly. When we were considering introducing the Bill a number of representations were made to us that, as a result of the introduction of Summer Time, in the middle of the summer it is legal for motor vehicles to travel on the roads without lights at a time when it is quite dark and most dangerous for them to do so.
There were two ways of dealing with this matter, one an extremely scientific


way, which would have resulted in there being a number of different lighting up areas all over the country. After considering the matter carefully we came to the conclusion that a rough and ready system such as this, taking half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise, would be more acceptable to the country. The Amendment will result in a rather anomalous and absurd situation, in that there will be a legal obligation in the North of Scotland for lights to be turned on in broad daylight. We thought it better to have something anomalous of that kind, provided that it was plain and simple, and something that everybody could understand, instead of a more scientific system based upon the nautical almanac.

New Clause I.—(PROTECTIVE HELMETS FOR MOTOR CYCLISTS.)

Lords Amendment: After the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause I:
(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing (by reference to shape, construction or any other quality) types of helmet recommended as affording protection to persons on or in motor cycles, or motor cycles of different classes or descriptions, from injury in the event of accident.
(2) If any person sells, or offers for sale, any helmet as a helmet for affording protection as aforesaid, and the helmet is neither—

(a) of a type prescribed under this section, nor
(b) of a type authorised under regulations made under this section and sold or offered for sale subject to any conditions specified in the authorisation,
he shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of a helmet if he proves that it was sold or, as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.
(3) In England or Wales the council of a county, of a borough or of an urban district or the Common Council of the City of London may institute proceedings for an offence under this section.
(4) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions in connection with proceedings for offences under section (Protective helmets for motor-cyclists)) shall have effect in relation to contraventions of this section.

(5) In this section and in the said Schedule the expression 'helmet' includes any headdress, and references in this section to selling or offering for sale include respectively references to letting on hire and offering to let on hire.
(6) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will be remembered that in this House we had a long discussion about crash helmets, and the House expressed the view that some restriction should be placed upon their sale. This Amendment was inserted to fulfil an undertaking given by my noble Friend Lord Lucas that we would take steps to try to see that crash helmets on sale were of a satisfactory nature and likely to give adequate protection. The Amendment makes it an offence for any person to sell a helmet as a helmet affording such protection if the helmet when sold is not of the type prescribed by me.
The Clause is phrased in that way because if we made it an offence to sell an ordinary hat to a motor cyclist we should get into all sorts of difficulties. This is the only satisfactory way of really seeing that crash helmets on sale are of a satisfactory nature.

Mr. C. Pannell: The new Clause says:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of a helmet if he proves that it was sold or, as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.
Those words are repeated later in connection with the question of ultimate responsibility. I have two points to make. The first is to ask whether, on grounds of broad public policy, we are prepared to export for sale to other countries inferior goods which it would be illegal to sell here. That would be damaging to British prestige and to our exports generally. I think that the Minister will be well seized of that point.
Secondly, it would be quite easy to brand inferior hats as being for export, and thereby make possible Wholesale cases of evasion. I could have said more but I know that the Minister will be seized of the points. My hon. Friends and I are extremely uneasy about the new


Clause. I have dealt with the matter as briefly as I can, and I hope that the Minister will consider these arguments to be of some weight.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I want to put on record the fact that we on this side of the House strongly support the new Clause. During the debate on Report the general view of the House was against compulsion, but many Members on both sides raised the question of the poor quality of some helmets, which really gave no protection. Since that debate evidence has been produced at the B.M.A. Conference, when a hat was banged on the table and shown to be of no use whatsoever.
I should like to ask the Minister when he envisages that it will be possible to lay down these standards, because this matter is urgent. The number of persons on the road on motor cycles is increasing daily and the accidents are, unfortunately, also increasing. Ample evidence has been produced by the B.M.A. showing the extent to which protection is given by these helmets if they are of the right quality.
This provision would also give the Minister the opportunity of embarking on a propaganda campaign for the helmets to be used. If he can state that helmets are of an accepted standard laid down by his Ministry, and thereby guaranteed to give a certain measure of protection, and that they should be used, the propaganda might have some effect. So I suggest that he proceeds as speedily as possible and embarks on a propaganda campaign at the same time.

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is one of the reasons why I wanted to get this Bill through, so that my Department can be working on these Regulations during the Recess. I can give an undertaking that this will be one of the first jobs that it does. In answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I would say that the reason for the provision relating to export is that we are advised that some manufacturers of protective helmets will want to make and sell a different kind to their foreign customers. But I can assure the hon. Member that we can find a way of seeing that these are not sold on the home market, so there is no escape in that way.

Mr. Isaacs: Does the Minister by that statement mean that these helmets are going abroad with his guarantee, yet at the same time they are not efficient?

Mr. Watkinson: No. Anything that goes abroad will not have any guarantee of mine. I think that this provision has been put in as a precaution, but I am advised that once we can get this undertaking, helmets that go abroad are likely to be of the same type as those sold in England.

Clause 34.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CONDITIONS OF CARRIERS' LICENCES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 43, after "with)" insert:
or a direction may be given under subsection (3) of that section.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I propose, if it be acceptable to you, Sir Charles, that we should deal also with the two subsequent Amendments, these being consequential. The conviction of the holder of a carrier's licence of certain offences against safety provisions is a ground for the revocation or suspension of a licence. It was not intended, in framing Clause 34 of this Bill, to take away this alternative power from the licensing authorities. It is important that this power should be preserved, and the effect of the first of these Amendments is to do so, and that of the others is consequential thereupon.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 29, line 18, after "licence" insert "or give a direction."

In line 24, at end insert:
or, as the case may be, the direction given.

Lords Amendment: In line 41, at end insert:
(4) So long as the provisions of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to holding and subsidiary companies) have effect, references in subsection (1) of this section to the holder of the licence or his servant or agent shall include references to the subsidiary company (within the meaning of the said section twelve) or any servant or agent of that company.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely to deal with the question that a holding company may signify to a licensing authority with respect to a carrier's licence for which it is applying that it wishes Section 12 to have effect as respects the subsidiary company. It is purely to clear up that anomaly.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 42, leave out "section sixteen" and insert "Part I."

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, intended to facilitate that consolidation of the Acts which we all so earnestly desire.

Clause 36.—(NEW LIGHTING ON TRUNK AND CLASSIFIED ROADS NOT TO IMPOSE SPEED LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 34, leave out Clause 36.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is necessitated by the transfer of the provisions of Clause 36.

Clause 38.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 33, line 40, after "Minister" insert:
or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State".

In page 34, line 4, after "Minister" insert "or of the Secretary of State".

In line 12, leave out "commencement of this Act" and insert:
coming into operation of this section".

In line 35, after "district" insert:
in England or Wales, or any county or town council in Scotland".

Clause 44.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 37, line 18, after "Minister" insert "or of the Secretary of State".

Clause 46.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 38, line 8, at end insert:
'bridleway' means a way over which the public have the following, but no other rights of way, that is to say a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way;
'chief officer of police' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1930;
'footpath' means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;
In line 10, at end insert:
'motor cycle' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1930, and paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section two of that Act (which relates to side cars) shall apply for the purposes of this Act as it applies for the purposes of Part I of that Act;

In line 13, leave out "has the meaning assigned to it" and insert:
stage carriage and express carriage have respectively the meanings assigned to them.

In line 17, after "any" insert "prohibition, restriction".

In line 33, after "by" insert "or under".

First Schedule.—(DEFERRED TESTS OF CONDITION OF VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 40, line 32, leave out from "Where" to "the" and insert:
the last foregoing sub-paragraph does not apply".

Second Schedule.—(TRAVELLING &C. ALLOWANCE FOR ATTENDANCE AT ROAD SAFETY CONFERENCES.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 41, line 37, after "Minister" insert:
or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State".

In line 48, after "Minister" insert "or as the case may be, the Secretary of State".—[Special Entry.]

Third Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR ORDERS DESIGNATING PARKING PLACES.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 42, line 19, leave out "order applied for" and insert "proposed order".

In line 36, at end insert:
(3) Where on the expiration of the period specified in the advertisement under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph it appears to the Minister that, before the application is further dealt with, the local authority should take further steps for the purpose mentioned in the


last foregoing sub-paragraph, he may direct the authority to take such further steps for that purpose as he may specify, and if he does so the period within which a copy of the order and plan may be inspected, and objections may be made, shall be deemed to be extended by such time as the Minister may direct.

In line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 43.

In page 43, line 11, after "(7)" insert "or (8)".

New Schedule A.—(OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF WHICH DISQUALIFICATION OR ENDORSEMENT MAY BE ORDERED.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 44, line 10, at end insert new Schedule A:
1. Any offence against subsection (1) of section four of the Act of 1930 or section thirty-one of the Act of 1934 (driving, or employing a person to drive, without a licence) or under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 (failure to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence.)
2. Any offence under subsection (4) of section seven of the Act of 1930 (applying for or obtaining a licence, or driving, while disqualified.)
3. Any offence against section nine of the Act of 1930 (restriction of driving by young persons.)
4. Any offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle against any statutory restriction of speed on a road, including any offence under section thirteen of the Act of 1930.
5. Manslaughter by the driver
of a motor vehicle, any offence under section thirty-five of the Offences against the Person Act. 1861 (causing bodily harm) committed by the person having charge of a motor vehicle, or any offence under section eight of this Act, or any offence under section eleven or twelve of the Act of 1930 (reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving) committed in respect of a motor vehicle.
6. Any offence under section nine of this Act, or any offence under section fifteen of the Act of 1930 (driving or attempting to drive when under the influence of drink or a drug) committed in respect of a motor vehicle.
7. Any offence under section sixteen of the Act of 1930 (unlawful pillion riding) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle
8. Any offence under section twenty-eight of the Act of 1930 (taking away motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority.)
9. Any offence under subsection (1) of section two of this Act.
10. An offence under any statutory provision, committed in respect of a motor vehicle, being an offence—

(a) of failure to conform to the indication given by a traffic sign or to comply with a direction given by a police constable, or

(b) of failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, or
(c) of using a vehicle on a road, or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used, so as, by the condition of the vehicle or its parts or accessories, the number of passengers carried by it, or the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of its load, to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger, and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) of contravening any requirement as to brakes, steering gear or tyres or any other requirement prescribed under subsection (1) of section one of this Act,
and any offence in respect of a motor vehicle under section fifty of the Act of 1930 (leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position on a road), subsection (8) of section eighteen of the Act of 1934 (pedestrian crossings), subsection (5) of section one of the Street Playgrounds Act. 1938, or subsection (2) of section two of the School Crossing Patrols Act, 1953.
11. Any offence under section thirty-five of the Act of 1930 (compulsory third party insurance).
12. Any offence in respect of a motor vehicle under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953.

New Schedule B.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION (PROTECTIVE HELMETS FOR MOTOR CYCLISTS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 47, line 29, at end insert new Schedule B:
1.—(1) A person against whom proceedings are brought in England or Wales for an offence under section (Protective helmets for motor-cyclists) of this Act (hereinafter referred to as "the principal section") shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of that section was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if, after the contravention has been proved, the original accused proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original accused further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that that section was complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.
(2) Where an accused seeks to avail himself of the provisions of the last foregoing subparagraph—

(a) the prosecution, as well as the person whom the accused charges with the offence, shall have the right to cross-examine him, if he gives evidence, and any witness called by him in support of his pleas, and to call rebutting evidence;


(b) the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment of costs by any party to the proceedings to any other party thereto.
(3) Where it appears that an offence under the principal section has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken in England or Wales against some person (hereafter referred to as "the original offender"), and a person proposing to take proceedings in respect of the offence is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person, being an act or default which took place in England or Wales, and that the original offender could establish a defence under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the proceedings may be taken against that other person without proceedings first being taken against the original offender.
In any such proceedings the accused may be charged with, and on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the original offender might have been charged.
2.—(1) Where proceedings are brought in England or Wales against any person (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as "the accused") in respect of a contravention of the principal section, and it is proved—

(a) that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, and
(b) that the accused used all due diligence to secure compliance with that section,
the accused shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be acquitted of the offence.
(2) The accused shall not be entitled to be acquitted under this paragraph unless within seven days from the date of the service of the summons on him he has given notice in writing to the prosecution of his intention to rely upon the provisions of this paragraph, specifying the name and address of the person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention was due, and has sent a like notice to that person.
(3) The person specified in a notice served under this paragraph shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence, and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.
(4) Where it is proved that the contravention of the principal section was due to the act or default of some person other than the accused, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, the court shall (whether or not the accused is acquitted) cause notice of the proceedings to be sent to the Minister.
3.—(1) Where a contravention of the principal section committed by any person in Scotland was due to an act or default of any other person, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, then, whether proceedings are or are not taken against the first-mentioned person that other person may be charged with and convicted of the contravention and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might have been inflicted on the first-mentioned person if he had been convicted of the contravention.

(2) Where a person who is charged in Scotland with a contravention of the principal section proves to the satisfaction of the court that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provision in question was complied with and that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person, the first-mentioned person shall be acquitted of the contravention.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, in any proceedings (whether in England or Wales or Scotland) for an offence under the principal section, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he purchased the helmet in question as being of a type which under the principal section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale, and with a written warranty to that effect, and
(b) that he had no reason to believe at the time of the commission of the alleged offence that it was not of such a type, and
(c) that it was then in the same state as when he purchased it.
(2) A warranty shall only be a defence in any such proceedings if—

(a) the accused—

(i) has, not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing, sent to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he received it, and
(ii) has also sent a like notice of his intention to that person, and

(b) in the case of a warranty given by a person resident outside the United Kingdom, the accused proves that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement contained therein.

(3) Where the accused is a servant of the person who purchased the helmet in question under a warranty, he shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this section in the same way as his employer would have been entitled to do if he had been the accused.
(4) The person by whom the warranty is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence, and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.
5.—(1) An accused who in any proceedings for an offence under the principal section wilfully applies to any helmet a warranty not given in relation to that helmet shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who, in respect of any helmet sold by him, being a helmet in respect of which a warranty might be pleaded under the last foregoing paragraph, gives to the purchaser a false warranty in writing, shall be guilty of an offence, unless he proves that when he gave the warranty he had reason to believe that the statements or description contained therein were accurate.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalties as under the principal section.


(4) Where the accused in a prosecution for an offence under the principal section relies successfully on a warranty given to him or to his employer, any proceedings under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph in respect of the warranty may, at the option of the prosecutor, be taken either before a court having jurisdiction in the place where the helmet, or any of the helmets, to which the warranty relates was procured, or before a court having jurisdiction in the place where the warranty was given.

Sixth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 12, at end insert:
("4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924 (which, as amended by section sixty-three of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, enables the Minister to make regulations with respect to road traffic in the London Traffic Area) after the word 'load' in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'the number of passengers the vehicle is adapted to carry'.
(2) In paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1924 (which specifies the matters with respect to which regulations may be made under the said section ten) after the word 'traffic' there shall be inserted the words 'by vehicles, or'.
(3) For the purposes of the said section ten and the said Third Schedule the expression 'road' means any highway and any other road to which the public has access.
5. In subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which confers powers on local authorities with respect to the lopping of trees, hedges and shrubs overhanging streets or footpaths) references to trees, hedges, and shrubs shall include references to vegetation of any description, and for the words 'street or footpath' there shall be substituted the words 'highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access'.
6.—(1) Regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, granting exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts—

(a) may grant exemptions therefrom in such cases as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such conditions as may be specified in or under the regulations; and
(b) may make different provision as respects different areas, as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicles or as respects the same class or description of vehicles in different circumstances.
(2) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which subsection provides for exempting vehicles from the requirements of that Act) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(b) vehicles standing or parked on any road with respect to which a speed limit on the driving of mechanically propelled

vehicles is in force by virtue of any enactment or on any road verge or in any parking place or any stand for hackney carriages.'
(3) In relation to a road with respect to which an exemption under the said paragraph (b) has effect (whether absolutely or subject to conditions) the power conferred by subsection (1) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 of placing traffic signs indicating the existence of the exemption shall, if the local authority for the area in which the road is situated is not the highway authority for the road, be exercisable by the local authority with the consent of the highway authority, and the power conferred by subsection (5) of that section of giving to the highway authority directions for the removal of a traffic sign or other object or device or for the replacement of a traffic sign by, or its conversion into, a sign of another type or character shall include power to give such directions to the local authority in relation to a traffic sign, object or device placed by them on or near any such road.
In this sub-paragraph 'local authority' means, as respects England and Wales, the council of a county borough, county district, metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London, and as respects Scotland a county council or town council.
(4) Any provision contained in regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, which grant exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts and are in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made under those Acts as amended by this paragraph.
("7.—(1) The Minister may by regulations provide that, subject to any exemptions prescribed by the regulations,—

(a) where the length of a vehicle, or the overall length of two or more vehicles of which one is drawing the other or others, inclusive of any load on the vehicle or vehicles, exceeds a length so prescribed, the vehicle or vehicles shall when on a road during the hours of darkness carry such lamps or reflectors each showing a light, or as the case may be facing, to the side as may be so prescribed;
(b) a vehicle constructed or adapted so as to be drawn by another vehicle shall when on a road during the hours of darkness carry such lamps each showing a light to the front or the side, or both, as may be prescribed;
and any such regulations may prescribe the conditions with which lamps or reflectors carried on a vehicle in pursuance of the regulations must comply and the position and manner in which they are to be attached, and may make different provision in respect of vehicles of different classes or descriptions, or in respect of vehicles of the same class or description in different circumstances.
(2) Section ten of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which imposes penalties for contraventions of that Act or of regulations thereunder) and section fourteen of that Act (which specifies the vehicles to which that Act applies and applies the Act to the Crown) shall apply in relation to this paragraph and


regulations thereunder as they apply in relation to that Act and regulations thereunder.
(3) Any lamps or reflectors required to be carried by virtue of this paragraph shall be carried in addition to, and not instead of, those required to be carried by or by virtue of the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, and accordingly any such lamps or reflectors shall, for the purposes of those Acts and, in particular, section two of the said Act of 1927 and for the purposes of section eight of the Act of 1934, be treated as not showing a light to the front or to the rear.
(4) Any reference in section nineteen of the Act of 1934 to the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, shall include a reference to this paragraph.
(5) It is hereby declared that any reference in section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953, to a reflector is a reference to a reflector facing to the rear.
(6) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
8.—(1) In section six of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (iii) (which provides that agricultural vehicles and implements need not carry a separate lamp showing a red light to the rear) the word 'separate' shall be omitted.
(2) In section eight of the said Act of 1927, in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) (which provides, in the case of a vehicle drawing one or more other vehicles, that if the distance between any such vehicles exceeds five feet each vehicle shall be required to carry the same lamps as if it were not drawing or being drawn) for the words from 'any such' to 'being drawn' there shall be substituted the words 'any two of the vehicles exceeds five feet, then as respects any light to be shown to the rear the foremost of the two vehicles, and as respects any light to be shown to the front the rearmost of the two vehicles shall be required to carry the same lamps as if the one were not drawing the other'.
9.—(1) In subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the classification of motor vehicles) the words from 'Motor vehicles' to 'classes' shall cease to have effect, and in each paragraph of that subsection the words from 'that is to say' to the end of the paragraph shall be construed as a definition for the purposes of that Act of the expression immediately preceding those words; and in paragraphs (d) to (f) of the said subsection (1) for the words 'classified under this section as' there shall be substituted the words 'falling within the definition contained in this subsection of'.
(2) Subsection (2) of the said section two (which empowers regulations to be made subdividing classes of vehicles, and making different provisions with respect to each subdivision, and varying maximum or minimum weights fixed as respects any class) shall cease to have effect, but regulations under section thirty of the Act of 1930 may vary any of the maximum or minimum weights specified in the definitions contained in subsection (1) of the

said section two, either generally or in the case of vehicles of any class or description specified in the regulations and cither for the purposes of the Act and of all regulations thereunder or for such of those purposes as may be so specified.
(3) The Motor Vehicles (Definition of Motor Cars) Regulations, 1941 shall cease to have effect, but subject to the power conferred by the last foregoing sub-paragraph the definition of 'motor cars' in subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 shall include vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description—

(a) which carry a container or containers for holding for the purpose of their propulsion any fuel that is wholly gaseous at sixty degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure of thirty inches of mercury, or plant and materials for producing such fuel, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three and a half tons,
(b) which do not carry any such container, or plant and materials, as aforesaid, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three tons;
and in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section two of the Act of 1930 after the word 'load' there shall be inserted the words 'or goods or burden of any description'.
(4) In subsection (3) of section four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for specifying in driving licences restrictions with respect to the driving of any class of vehicle) after the word 'class' there shall be inserted the words 'or description'.
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) of section ten of the Act of 1930 (which empowers the Minister by regulation to vary the provisions of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be construed as limiting the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.")
10. In subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1930 (which requires a licensing authority to refuse a driving licence if it appears from the application that the applicant suffers from any of the specified diseases and disabilities) after the word 'appears', where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or if on inquiry into other information the licensing authority are satisfied'.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment consists of a number of unrelated paragraphs added to the Sixth Schedule of the Bill, which is the Schedule which enacts minor and consequential Amendments. I venture to suggest that we might answer any questions that are put about the details of them. The majority of them are purely drafting and none of them, I think I can assure the House, is of any importance.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 48, line 13, leave out from beginning to "(which" in line 19 and insert:
4. In subsection (2) of section six of the Act of 1930".

In page 49, line 8, leave out from "Act" to end of line 17 and insert:
in subsection (6) for the words from 'five pounds' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'".

In line 21, leave out from "and" to end of line 22 and insert:
for the words from 'the offence of' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'the provisions of this Part of this Act as to disqualification for holding or obtaining licences shall not apply to his conviction of that offence'".

In line 22, at end insert:
7. In section fourteen of the Act of 1930, in subsection (1) for the word 'footway' there shall be substituted the word 'footpath' and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(3) In this section the expressions "bridleway" and "footpath" have the same meanings as in the Road Traffic Act, 1956'.

In page 51, line 8, leave out "of" and insert "as to".

Lords Amendment: In line 8, at end insert:
(4) In section seventy-one of the Act of 1930, in subsection (4), after the words 'conditions as to fitness' there shall be inserted the words 'or such of those conditions as are not dispensed with by an order of the Minister under section sixty-eight of this Act for the time being in force'.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is consequential on paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule.

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the rights conferred by the said section eighty-one to appeal if aggrieved by the imposition or attachment of a condition shall include rights to appeal against a refusal to impose or attach a condition or the imposition or attachment of a condition differing from that desired, and the rights conferred by that section to appeal if aggrieved by the variation of conditions shall include rights to appeal if aggrieved by the variation dffering from that desired.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to clarify the appeal rights against decisions of the traffic commissioners provided under Section 81 of the 1930 Act.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 52, line 6, at end insert:
19. Subsection (2) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1930 (which provides for consultation with representative organisations before the making of regulations under that Act) shall apply to the making of regulations under this Act or the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953; and subsection (4) of that section, and subsection (3) of section twenty-six of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which provide that production of a copy of regulations purporting to be printed by the Government printers shall be evidence that the requirements of the Act as to the making and laying of regulations have been complied with) shall cease to have effect.

In line 23, at end insert:
(2) Regulations under the said section sixteen may contain exemptions, applying in such cases and subject to such limitations as may be specified in the regulations, for vehicles used in the business of agriculture or vehicles used in the business of a travelling showman.

In line 28, at end insert:
(3) Any such exemption or requirement as aforesaid contained in regulations under the said section sixteen in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made in the exercise of the powers conferred thereby.

In line 43, leave out "following provisions of this paragraph" and insert:
provisions of the four next following subparagraphs".

In line 50, after "revoked" insert "or varied."

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 17, at end insert:
(6) The provisions of the four last foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply in relation to such directions as are authorised by subsection (4) of section four of this Act as they apply in relation to directions that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this paragraph applies to any length of trunk road.
(8) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Sub-paragraph (6) is needed because, without it, except on trunk roads and roads in the London traffic area, the Minister's powers in regard to the new 40 mile per hour speed limit which it is proposed to introduce by the Amendment to Clause 4, in page 5, line 23, would be limited to giving or withholding his consent to an Order.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 53, line 22, at end insert:
being an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle.

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 33, at end insert:
29. For subsection (1) of section three of the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1936 (which provides that a driving licence granted on a test of competence to drive prescribed for a specified class or description of vehicles shall specify that class or description and that the person to whom it is granted shall be deemed not to be the holder of a driving licence for vehicles of any other class or description) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(1) A licence (other than a provisional licence) granted under Part I of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall specify whether the licence authorises the holder to drive motor vehicles of all classes or descriptions or of certain classes or descriptions only, and in the latter case—

(a) the licence shall specify the classes or descriptions of vehicles which it authorises the holder to drive, and
(b) the holder shall be deemed not to be the holder of a licence granted under that Part of that Act to drive motor vehicles of any other class or description.'"

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These words are intended to facilitate the consolidation to which we all look forward.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 53, line 49, leave out "commencement of this Act" and insert:
coming into operation of this paragraph".

Seventh Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 54, line 38, at end insert:


"17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 37.
The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927.
In section one, in subsection (2) the words 'and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulation' and the words 'or vehicles of any class or description', and in subsection (4) the words from '(a) as respects' to 'the year'; in section six, in subparagraph (b) of paragraph (iii), the word 'separate'"

In line 39, column 3, after first "In" insert:
section two, in subsection (1) the words from the beginning to 'classes' and subsections (2) and (3); in".

In page 55, line 13, column 3, after "end" insert:
in section forty-six, subsections (1) and (9), in section forty-eight, the proviso to subsection (4.)"'

In line 22, column 3, after "sixty-one" insert:
in section one hundred and eleven, subsection (4)".

In line 22, column 3, leave out from "sixty-one" to "and" in line 27.

In line 32, column 3, after "In" insert "section two, subsection (5); in".

In line 33, column 3, leave out "and".

In line 35, column 3, at end insert:
and in section twenty-six, subsection (3)".

In line 43, column 3, leave out "(6)" and insert:
and (6), in subsection (7), in paragraph (b), the words 'under subsection (5) of this section', and subsections".

In line 44, column 3, leave out from "(10)" to first "in" in line 46.

In line 51, column 3, after "months" insert:
in section six in subsection (1), the word 'either' and the words from the first 'or' to the end of the subsection".

In line 55, at end insert:


1 Edw. 8.&amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 5.
The Trunk Roads Act, 1936.
In the Second Schedule, in the entry relating to section forty-seven of the Act of 1930, the words 'and (8)'; and in Part I of the Third Schedule, in the entry relating to section one of the Act of 1934, the words 'Subsection (5) shall not apply'."

In line 57, at end insert:


"1 &amp; 2 Eliz. 2.c. 21.
The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953.
In section one, in subsection (5), the words from 'and subject' to 'the regulation' and the words 'either generally or in any particular circumstances'; in section three, in subsection (3), the words 'in any prescribed circumstances'.


1 &amp; 2 Eliz. 2. c. 22.
The Road Transport Lighting (No. 2) Act, 1953.
Section one."

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 1.—(NOTICE OF MARRIAGE INTENDED TO BE CELEBRATED OR CONTRACTED IN SCOTLAND WHERE ONE PARTY HAS A PARENT RESIDING THERE. 41 & 42 VICT. c. 43.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 1, line 11, leave out "or she".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEE)

11.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in view of the lateness of the hour we propose to take the Motion on the Select Committee on Procedure after the end of the debate on defence and manpower tomorrow?

EARLY POTATOES (IMPORTS FROM CYPRUS)

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to raise the question of new potatoes, a matter to which I have frequently drawn attention in recent weeks at Question Time. I do this because it is a question which vitally interests a very important section of my constituents in the agricultural part of South Ayrshire, and not only South Ayrshire but all areas in Scotland which grow new potatoes.
I am very anxious that the Government should give some indication of their policy for next year. It is too late to do anything about the blunders of this year, but it is already time to look ahead so that the Government may give the farmers some idea whether they can look forward to the calamities that occurred this year repeating themselves next year.
Two years ago I raised the question of imports from Cyprus and their effect upon the new potato crop in Ayrshire. The then Minister of Food, replying to me on 12th July, 1954, said:
The Ayrshire fanners producing Ayrshire earlies have no reason to fear competition from imported potatoes from Cyprus—grown, incidentally, from Scottish seed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 19.]
That was two years ago. We were told then that the farmers had nothing to fear. This promise having been given in 1954, after the calamity of 1956 one of the farmers in my constituency wrote to me


to say that the prophecy of the Government in 1954
has proved to be an utterly irresponsible statement. It is galling and very disturbing to an ordinary citizen to think that a man holding a responsible position of Government should utter such short-sighted rubbish.
That referred to the Minister of Food at the time—now the right hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill.) That criticism of the Minister comes from a Conservative farmer.
Again, I raised the question two years ago, and I was then informed by the then Joint Under Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Snadden—the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland—that the Ayrshire farmers were not in any way affected by the imported crops from Cyprus, as compared with others. Indeed, the warnings which the Ayrshire farmers gave two years ago went unheeded by the Government; members of the Government then said that these farmers had no need to worry about the Cyprus imports.
I indicate all this against a background of seething discontent in the agricultural areas of Scotland; discontent with the whole trend of Government policy, which was expressed last week at a National Farmers' Union meeting in South Ayrshire, when an influential member of the farming community there, Mr. R. H. U. Stevenson, of Corseclays, Ballantrae, said that the people feeding cattle for the spring had been caught; the people in the north had been "slaughtered" over oats, they had almost "caught it" over milk, and had "had it" with early potatoes. Mr. Stevenson is reported to have added:
Unless we can be assured that the Government are going to take real cognisance of imports—and don't let them put you off with airy-fairy stuff that you are guaranteed this and guaranteed that—unless you get an assurance of this, you are wasting your time having these discussions.
He concluded his criticism by saying about the Government's promise,
These airy-fairy promises and guarantees are not worth a damn.
This is very strong language, but it undoubtedly expresses the point of view of the farmers who have been completely let down by Government policy in relation to what happened with new potatoes this year. The farmers are concerned about

these imports from Cyprus. If the imports from there had arrived according to schedule, there might not have been such ground for complaint; but just at the time when the Ayrshire new potatoes were ready, along came four boatloads of new potatoes from Cyprus, completely knocking the bottom out of the local farmers' market.
The Scottish Farmer, in a lengthy article in its issue of 30th June, under the heading, "Calamity Faces Early Potato Growers—Cyprus Imports Kill Market", states,
We move from one potato crisis to another. Hardly has the din and fury over the marketing of the maincrop potatoes subsided than it swells again over the earlies. An uncontrolled flood of continental potatoes played ducks and drakes with what was left of the maincrop. A heavy influx of Cyprus potatoes—grown largely from Scottish seed of the Arran Banner and Up-to-Date varieties—is involving growers of early potatoes in the south-west and west of Scotland in heavy financial losses. The position is so bad that it has been described as the worst first week of digging in living memory".
The article states that early potato growers had lost £500,000 in the first ten days of the season, and goes on to describe not only the direct effects of that, but the fact that it has completely upset the farmers' arrangements for the rest of the season. So I consider that I am justified in passing on these complaints and in asking the Minister for some assurance that that sort of thing is not likely to happen again.
I want the Minister also to give me an assurance that these farmers will be compensated for the loss they have sustained, due to no fault of theirs but because Government policy in Cyprus resulted in these potatoes coming into the market a month late. It is as a result of the holding up of the potatoes at the little harbours of Cyprus, by reason of curfews and so on, because of Government policy, that this dumping took place. It is not right to ask the farmers of Ayrshire to pay the collective fines for the people of Cyprus. That is precisely what is happening.
If it is not in any way the fault of the farmers but is the fault of Government policy, are the Government not prepared to make good some of the losses which are the direct result of their policy? In another editorial article in the Scottish


Farmer of the following week, it was pointed out:
Granted it was stated that the potato boats from Cyprus had been delayed owing to the unsettled conditions on the Island, and that had they arrived at intervals during the previous month last week's position would not have arisen. But it must have been known before these boats left the Island that they were far behind their schedule and that their unloading would coincide with the lifting of the early home-grown potatoes. It must have been equally apparent that their arrival could have only one result.
I would not think it right to ask the people who grow the early potatoes, who are very skilled farmers, to bear the whole brunt of this, and I ask the Minister whether he cannot make a statement saying that this loss is not to be borne entirely by the farmers who have been involved in this calamity.
I know that it is too late to do anything this year, I know that I shall be told it is no good crying about spilled milk, but as we warned the Government two years ago about the inevitable results of this policy, and because this has been a large-scale calamity over a wide area, I am entitled to ask the Minister for an assurance that before history repeats itself in this way the Government will show that they have some positive, constructive policy to deal with what, I believe, is a major agricultural scandal.

12.8 a.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Nobody can complain that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been speaking up for his constituents in Ayrshire, because there is no doubt that they have had a bit of a knock in the early potato trade. The early potato trade always is a bit tricky and a bit of a gamble. Those who get in right can charge a higher price and do very well, but in the years when they do not, as in this year and in the previous year, the gamble does not come off. Of course the farmers are complaining, because what happened this year was caused by a very peculiar and unusual and, I hope, unrepeatable set of circumstances.
As I understand it, the plan was that the four boats should leave Cyprus from 1st May one by one weekly and that all four boats should reach this country and discharge their cargoes before 1st June, but owing to a curfew in Cyprus and the

disturbances there the boats were not loaded in time and all four of them not only came in at once, but arrived a month late. That is just too bad. That is just one of those vary unfortunate things that the Department of Agriculture could not possibly foresee, and I am afraid that Ayrshire farmers have suffered.
There is not much I can suggest to the hon. Gentleman or to the Ayrshire farmers or to the Government, but someone in the Government, the Colonial Secretary or the Foreign Secretary, I do not know which, must have known what was going on in Cyprus, and that shipments would be coming together and a month late; and if there had been co-ordination between Government Departments it would have been possible for them to have told the Potato Marketing Board what was going to happen, so that the Board could have made arrangements, at any rate to warn the farmers not to start digging because these four shiploads were going to spoil their market.
The Board could have advised them not to take on labour for early digging, but to let them grow, and sell them when they were bigger, as ware potatoes, because up to date Arran Banner potatoes are quite eatable if allowed to go on growing, and there is a guaranteed price. If there are to be troubles in Cyprus, if there are extraordinary circumstances, the Potato Marketing Board should be informed of what is likely to happen, and then it is up to the Board to inform the farmers, who can organise accordingly. The Board has no means of informing itself of what is going on in Cyprus. The Government must give it that information. If that is done, we can avoid these sort of things in the future.

12.12 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I should be the last to complain that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has raised this matter in the House since it obviously affects his own constituents and people of the neighbouring constituencies. I welcome very much the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given me to clear up some misconceptions which have been prevalent.
Early potatoes start coming into this country from the Channel Islands, from France and from Cyprus in May and those imports run on into June. About half of the early potatoes come from the Channel Islands and about a quarter come from Cyprus. The natural markets for the Channel Island and French potatoes are in the South of England, of course. Shipments from Cyprus come to Liverpool, London, Glasgow and Leith in that order of importance. There are no restrictions on imports of early potatoes. They come in on open general licence, and have done so since 1954. The protection is by way of a tariff of 1d. per 1b. from 16th May to 30th June. Cyprus, of course, being within the Commonwealth, enjoys duty-free entry under Imperial Preference, along with the Channel Islands.
Cyprus potatoes normally start arriving in Scotland well before the Ayrshire and Wigtownshire earlies are available. They fetch very good prices. If they did not come, no doubt potatoes from Cornwall or Cheshire or elsewhere would come to Scotland instead. Scottish potatoes are preferred and they seem to fetch better prices when they arrive in the market.
Let me now clear up the misconception. This year shipments from Cyprus were earlier than usual. It so happened that shipments to Glasgow arrived rather later than usual, but they have not been nearly so heavy as in previous years. In 1955, for example 3,990 tons came in May from Cyprus to Glasgow, and 4,205 in June, making a total of 8,195 tons.
In 1956, only 600 tons came to Glasgow in May and 4,642 tons in June, making a total of 5,242 tons. Shipments to Leith amounted to 2,060 tons. Arrivals in June were 437 tons more than in June last year, but total arrivals in Glasgow were about 3,000 tons less. To get the matter into perspective, it should be remembered that the consumption of potatoes and potato products in Glasgow alone is about 200 tons a day. Therefore, the amount of extra potatoes from Cyprus in June was a little more than two days' supply for Glasgow alone and much less than one day's supply for the industrial belt of Scotland. Total imports from Cyprus to Scotland amount to roughly one-tenth of the estimated Scottish output of early potatoes.
Most of these potatoes came in three ships which happened to reach Glasgow on 16th and 18th June, just as the Ayrshire potatoes were coming on the market. That was extremely unfortunate for the Ayrshire producers but there was nothing that the Government could do about it. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire suggested that this was the result of Government policy in Cyprus and he spoke of dumping from Cyprus. There is no question of dumping. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has also suggested that this trouble has been due to the operation of a curfew in Cyprus.
I am informed that these three ships were loaded at Famagusta and it is true that there was a curfew on 30th and 31st May. It affected only the Greek-Cypriot areas, which do not cover the port area or the old town, where most of the port workers reside—and most of the port workers are Turkish Cypriots. I doubt whether the curfew delayed shipments at all. If it did, the effect can only have been very slight.
Did the emergency restrictions in any way delay shipments? Could they have interfered in any way with lifting, loading or sailing? Emergency restrictions, as I understand, relate only to the road movement of vehicles while troops are operating on the roads concerned. I have inquired about this point. There is no evidence of any delay to these three shipments from this source.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus asked whether arrangements could be made for intelligence to be provided in any way. Talks are going on between the Potato Marketing Board and the High Commissioner for Cyprus with a view to providing the earliest possible information about shipments. Talks have also been going on with the Potato Marketing Board on the general subject of intelligence from abroad.
It is worth mentioning that ships take about eleven days to come from Cyprus to United Kingdom ports. During that time cargoes can be and are frequently switched from one port to another. Obviously, the earlier the information the more chance there is of potatoes being directed to those ports where they are most needed.
As to the condition of the market this year, I am informed that at the Girvan auctions, where potatoes are sold in the ground on an acreage basis, the acreage offered this year was 20 per cent. higher than that offered last year, and rather less than two-thirds of the lots offered were sold in the early stages, but the average price was £114 per acre as against £122 in 1955.
It is true that, following upon the arrival of these potatoes from Cyprus, the market price for potatoes declined very rapidly. First sales of Ayrshire potatoes and Wigtownshire potatoes were effected in the week ended 21st June, at 48s. per cwt., and at that time the retail price to the consumer was 6d. per 1b. The following week wholesale prices were down to 27s. for Ayrshire potatoes and 22s. for Cyprus potatoes, and the consumer price dropped to 4d. per 1b. or less. As the season goes on, prices always do tend to drop, and by 18th July they were reported at 17s. per cwt, with consumer prices around 2½d. per 1b. in Glasgow.
Growers' prices have fallen to a matter of £11–£12 per ton in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and I am informed that merchants consider that the bottom of the market has now been reached. Given a yield of some 9 tons per acre, it should be possible, even at that, for growers to cover their costs. I said "cover their costs"; they might even make a profit, though not a large one. If the yield is less than that, then they might not succeed in covering their costs. Admittedly, these prices look very small compared with the prices of £40 or £50 obtained in the early part of the season for imported potatoes, but I think we should remember that only one-third or so of the early Scottish potatoes are sold for consumption.
So, what has happened this year is that there were good crops in Cyprus and good crops in Great Britain. The Scottish production is undoubtedly higher this year than it was last year, perhaps by one-fifth. Imports of potatoes from Cyprus up to the end of June were about two-fifths higher than last year to the United Kingdom as a whole but about one-fifth less to Scotland.
The growing of early potatoes is, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, a chancy affair. The growing of early potatoes has not been neglected in the arrangements that were made by the

Potato Marketing Board under the guarantee system. As I said, protection is given by way of a tariff, and this year has undoubtedly not turned out too well for the growers in certain localities. One has to remember that this is the first year of the new arrangements that have been put into force through the Potato Marketing Board, and no doubt, as happens whenever there is a return from complete control, there are teething troubles to be faced.
With better market intelligence and renewed experience of marketing in this country and of the techniques of marketing in getting the goods to the right place at the right moment, there is no doubt whatever that that situation should improve in future. Every product is bound to have its teething troubles as freedom is returned to it.
I would certainly be the last to make any predictions for the future in this regard, but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the likelihood is that in the future we shall not have the same concurrence of events as has happened this year, a concurrence of events which has resulted in a larger proportion of the Cyprus crop coming later to Glasgow than in previous years, when the shipments were very evenly spaced as between May and June.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will there be any compensation?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is to be any compensation. Had this resulted from any action or omission on the part of the Government the situation might have been different, and that might be a proper question, but, as I have indicated, this has not resulted from any action or omission in Cyprus on the part of the Government or, indeed, from any change in the arrangements made for the marketing of early potatoes in this country. Therefore I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I am afraid there is no case for any question of Government compensation. While I very much regret the fact that the market has undoubtedly been disturbed, that was by a situation quite outwith the control of the Government.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.